99-12758. National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Categories; Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing

[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 113 (Monday, June 14, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 31695-31731]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-12758]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 9 and 63

[FRL-6345-3]
RIN 2060-AE75


National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for 
Source Categories; Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This action promulgates national emission standards for 
hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for new and existing sources in wool 
fiberglass manufacturing facilities. This action also adds Method 316 
and Method 318 for the measurement of formaldehyde from wool fiberglass 
manufacturing lines to appendix A of part 63.
    The hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) emitted by the facilities 
covered by this rule include compounds of three metals (arsenic, 
chromium, lead) and three organic HAPs (formaldehyde, phenol, and 
methanol). Exposure to these HAPs can cause reversible or irreversible 
health effects including carcinogenic, respiratory, nervous system, 
developmental, reproductive, and/or dermal health effects. The EPA 
estimates the final rule will reduce nationwide emissions of HAPs from 
these facilities by 530 megagrams per year (Mg/yr) (580 tons per year 
[ton/yr]), an approximate 30 percent reduction from the current level 
of emissions. In addition, the rule will achieve an estimated 760 Mg/yr 
(840 ton/yr) of particulate matter (PM) reductions.
    These standards implement section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) 
and are based on the Administrator's determination that wool fiberglass 
manufacturing facilities may reasonably be anticipated to emit several 
of the 188 HAPs listed in section 112(b) of the CAA from the various 
process operations found within the industry. The final rule will 
provide protection to the public by requiring all wool

[[Page 31696]]

fiberglass plants that are major sources to meet emission standards 
reflecting the application of the maximum achievable control technology 
(MACT).
    In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), this action 
also amends the table that lists the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) control numbers issued under the PRA for this rule.
    A supplement to the proposed rule was proposed in the Federal 
Register on February 12, 1999 (64 FR 7149). The EPA will give careful 
consideration to all comments on the supplemental proposal and will 
amend this final rule in a future action as appropriate.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 14, 1999. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION 
section concerning judicial review.

ADDRESSES: Docket. The docket for this rulemaking containing the 
information considered by the EPA in development of the final rule is 
Docket No. A-95-24. This docket is available for public inspection 
between 8 a.m. and 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday except for Federal 
holidays, at the following address: U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (6102), 401 M 
Street SW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone: [phone]. The docket 
is located at the above address in Room M-1500, Waterside Mall (ground 
floor). A reasonable fee may be charged for copying docket materials.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Mary Johnson, at [phone], 
Minerals and Inorganic Chemicals Group, Emission Standards Division 
(MD-13), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, 
North Carolina 27711. For information regarding Methods 316 and 318, 
contact Ms. Rima N. Dishakjian, Emissions, Monitoring, and Analysis 
Division, at [phone].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Regulated Entities. Entities potentially regulated by the final 
rule are facilities that manufacture wool fiberglass. Regulated 
categories and entities are shown in Table 1.

                                   Table 1.--Regulated Categories and Entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Entity category                                            Description
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industrial..........................  Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Plants (SIC 3296).
Federal Government: Not Affected.
State/Local/Tribal Government: Not
 Affected.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a 
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this 
action. This table lists the types of entities that the EPA is now 
aware could potentially be regulated by this action. To determine 
whether your facility is regulated by this action, you should carefully 
examine the applicability criteria in Sec. 63.1380 of the final rule. 
If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to 
a particular entity, consult the appropriate regional representative:
    Region I--Janet Bowen, Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. EPA, 
Region I, CAP, JFK Federal Building, Boston, MA 02203, [phone].
    Region II--Kenneth Eng, Air Compliance Branch Chief, U.S. EPA, 
Region II, 290 Broadway, New York, NY 10007-1866, [phone].
    Region III--Bernard Turlinski, Air Enforcement Branch Chief, U.S. 
EPA, Region III, 3AT10, 841 Chestnut Building, Philadelphia, PA 19107, 
[phone].
    Region IV--Lee Page, Air Enforcement Branch, U.S. EPA, Region IV, 
Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street, Atlanta, GA 30303-3104, 
[phone].
    Region V--George T. Czerniak, Jr., Air Enforcement Branch Chief, 
U.S. EPA, Region V, 5AE-26, 77 West Jackson Street, Chicago, IL 60604, 
[phone].
    Region VI--John R. Hepola, Air Enforcement Branch Chief, U.S. EPA, 
Region VI, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, TX 75202-2733, (214) 
665-7220.
    Region VII--Donald Toensing, Chief, Air Permitting and Compliance 
Branch, U.S. EPA, Region VII, 726 Minnesota Avenue, Kansas City, KS 
66101, [phone].
    Region VIII--Douglas M. Skie, Air and Technical Operations Branch 
Chief, U.S. EPA, Region VIII, 999 18th Street, Suite 500, Denver, CO 
80202-2466, [phone].
    Region IX--Barbara Gross, Air Compliance Branch Chief, U.S. EPA, 
Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, (415) 744-
1138.
    Region X--Anita Frankel, Air and Radiation Branch Chief, U.S. EPA, 
Region X, AT-092, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101, [phone].
    Judicial Review. The NESHAP for wool fiberglass manufacturing 
plants was proposed on March 31, 1997 (62 FR 15228); this action 
announces the EPA's final decisions on the rule. Under section 
307(b)(1) of the CAA, judicial review of the NESHAP is available only 
by filing a petition for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 
District of Columbia Circuit within 60 days of today's publication of 
this final rule. Under section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the requirements 
that are the subject of today's notice may not be challenged later in 
civil or criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to enforce these 
requirements.
    Technology Transfer Network. In addition to being available in the 
docket, an electronic copy of today's document, which includes the 
regulatory text, is available through the Technology Transfer Network 
(TTN) at the Unified Air Toxics Website (UATW). Following promulgation, 
a copy of the rule will be posted at the TTN's policy and guidance page 
for newly proposed or promulgated rules (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/
t3pfpr.html). The TTN facilitates the exchange of information in 
various areas of air pollution control, such as technology. If more 
information on the TTN is needed, call the TTN HELP line at (919) 541-
5384.
    Outline. The following outline is provided to aid in reading this 
preamble to the final rule.

I. Background
    A. Background and Purpose of Standards
    B. Technical Basis of Regulation
    C. Stakeholder and Public Participation
II. Summary of Final Rule
    A. Applicability
    B. Emission Standards
    C. Compliance and Performance Test Provisions
    D. Monitoring and Operating Requirements
    E. Notification, Reporting, and Recordkeeping Requirements
III. Summary of Changes Since Proposal
    A. Definitions
    B. Performance Test Provisions
    C. Monitoring Requirements
    D. Notification, Reporting, and Recordkeeping Requirements
    E. Display of OMB Control Numbers
IV. Summary of Impacts
V. Summary of Responses to Major Comments
    A. Selection of Pollutants

[[Page 31697]]

    B. Selection of Emission Limits
    C. Monitoring
    D. Performance Tests
VI. Administrative Requirements
    A. Docket
    B. Executive Order 12866--Regulatory Planning and Review
    C. Executive Order 12875--Enhancing the Intergovernmental 
Partnership
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Regulatory Flexibility
    F. Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office
    G. Paperwork Reduction Act
    H. Pollution Prevention Act
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 13045--Protection of Children from 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    K. Executive Order 13084--Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments

I. Background

A. Background and Purpose of Standards

    Section 112 of the CAA requires that the EPA promulgate regulations 
for the control of HAP emissions from both new and existing major 
sources. The statute requires the regulations to reflect the maximum 
degree of reduction in emissions of HAPs that is achievable, taking 
into consideration the cost of achieving the emission reduction, any 
nonair quality health and environmental impacts, and energy 
requirements. This level of control is commonly referred to as MACT.
    Section 112 of the CAA requires the EPA to establish national 
standards to reduce air emissions from major sources and certain area 
sources that emit one or more HAPs. Section 112(b) contains a list of 
HAPs to be regulated by NESHAP. Section 112(c) directs the Agency to 
use this pollutant list to develop and publish a list of source 
categories for which NESHAP will be developed and a schedule for 
development of these NESHAP. The Agency must list all known source 
categories and subcategories of ``major sources'' that emit one or more 
of the listed HAPs. A major source is defined in section 112(a) as any 
stationary source or group of stationary sources located within a 
contiguous area and under common control that emits or has the 
potential to emit in the aggregate, considering controls, 10 tons per 
year or more of any one HAP or 25 tons per year or more of any 
combination of HAPs. This list of source categories was published in 
the Federal Register on July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576) and includes wool 
fiberglass manufacturing.
    The control of HAPs is achieved through the promulgation of 
technology-based emission standards under section 112 for categories of 
sources that emit HAPs. Emission reductions may be accomplished through 
the application of measures, processes, methods, systems, or techniques 
including, but not limited to: (1) Reducing the volume of, or 
eliminating emissions of, such pollutants through process changes, 
substitution of materials, or other modifications; (2) enclosing 
systems or processes to eliminate emissions; (3) collecting, capturing, 
or treating such pollutants when released from a process, stack, 
storage or fugitive emissions point; (4) design, equipment, work 
practice, or operational standards (including requirements for operator 
training or certification) as provided in subsection (h); or (5) a 
combination of the above. (See section 112(d)(2).) The EPA may 
promulgate more stringent regulations to address residual risk that 
remains after the imposition of controls. (See section 112(f)(2).) 
Pursuant to section 112(d) of the CAA, on March 31, 1997, the EPA 
proposed NESHAP for new and existing major sources in the wool 
fiberglass manufacturing source category (62 FR 15228).

B. Technical Basis of Regulation

    Since proposal, no changes have been made in the emission standards 
or the MACT floor that is the basis for the emission standards. The 
rationale for the selection of the standards, including their technical 
basis, is discussed in the preamble to the proposed rule (62 FR 15228, 
March 31, 1997).

C. Stakeholder and Public Participation

    Various stakeholders were involved in the development of these 
standards. Individual wool fiberglass companies and the industry 
association (the North American Insulation Manufacturers Association) 
were consulted throughout the development of these standards. 
Representatives from State and Regional enforcement agencies, as well 
as representatives from other offices within the EPA, participated in 
the regulatory development process by reviewing and commenting on the 
standards during development.
    The NESHAP for wool fiberglass manufacturing (40 CFR part 63, 
subpart NNN) was proposed in the Federal Register on March 31, 1997 (62 
FR 15228). The public comment period ended on May 30, 1997. Industry 
representatives, regulatory authorities, and environmental groups had 
the opportunity to comment on the proposed standard and to provide 
additional information during the public comment period. Although the 
Agency offered at proposal the opportunity for oral presentation of 
data, views, or arguments concerning the proposed rule, no one 
requested a hearing and a hearing was not held. The EPA received nine 
letters containing comments on the proposed standard from various 
groups including associations representing industry, regulatory 
agencies, and air pollution control equipment vendors, as well as from 
State regulatory agencies and a private citizen. This final rule 
reflects the EPA's full consideration of the comments. The major public 
comments, along with the EPA's responses to the comments on the 
proposed rule, are summarized in this preamble. A more detailed 
discussion of public comments and EPA's responses is contained in the 
docket (Docket No. A-95-24; Item V-C-2).

II. Summary of Final Rule

A. Applicability

    As stated in Sec. 63.1380, the final NESHAP applies to each of the 
following existing and newly constructed sources located at a wool 
fiberglass manufacturing facility: All glass-melting furnaces, rotary 
spin (RS) manufacturing lines that produce bonded building insulation, 
and flame attenuation (FA) manufacturing lines producing bonded pipe 
insulation. The rule also applies to new FA manufacturing lines 
producing bonded heavy-density products. RS and FA manufacturing lines 
that produce nonbonded products, where no binder is applied, are not 
subject to the standards. A facility emitting less than 10 tons per 
year of any HAP or less than 25 tons per year of any combination of 
HAPs is an area source and is not subject to this NESHAP. Facilities 
that manufacture mineral wool from rock or slag are not subject to this 
rule but are subject to a separate NESHAP for mineral wool production. 
(See 62 FR 25370 (May 8, 1997), notice of proposed rulemaking.)

B. Emission Standards

    No changes were made to the emission limits as proposed. The 
emission standards are contained in the final rule in Sec. 63.1382.

C. Compliance and Performance Test Provisions

    As stated in Sec. 63.1387, new sources must demonstrate compliance 
with the standard at startup. Existing sources must comply within 3 
years of the effective date of the final rule but may request an 
extension for a fourth year pursuant to the regulatory authority under 
section 112(i)(3)(B) of the CAA.

[[Page 31698]]

    As required by Sec. 63.1384, owners or operators must, by 
conducting a performance test, demonstrate initial compliance with the 
PM emission limits for affected glass-melting furnaces and the 
formaldehyde emission limits for affected RS and FA manufacturing 
lines. During the initial performance test, the owner or operator must 
monitor and record the glass pull rate of the furnace and the glass 
pull rate of each manufacturing line during each of the three test runs 
and determine the emission rate for each run. A determination of 
compliance will be based on the average of the three individual test 
runs.
    In Sec. 63.1384, the owner or operator is required to monitor and 
record all parameter values at least every 15 minutes during the 
performance test and to calculate an average using all of the parameter 
measurements. However, the standard requires that the appropriate 
parameters for incinerators and scrubbers be continuously monitored and 
recorded.
    The owner or operator of an electrostatic precipitator (ESP) that 
is used to control PM emissions from a glass-melting furnace must 
monitor and record the ESP operating parameter(s) and establish the 
parameter limit(s) that will be used to monitor the ESP performance 
following the performance test. Where a cold top electric furnace is 
operated without the use of an add-on PM control device, the owner or 
operator must monitor and record the air temperature above the surface 
of the glass melt to ensure that the maximum temperature does not 
exceed 120  deg.C (250  deg.F) at a location 46 to 61 centimeters (18 
to 24 inches) above the molten glass surface. The owner or operator of 
a glass-melting furnace that is not equipped with an add-on PM control 
device and that is not a cold top electric furnace must monitor and 
record the furnace operating parameter(s) and establish the parameter 
limit(s) that will be used to monitor the furnace performance following 
the performance test.
    To determine compliance with the emission limits for new and 
existing RS and FA manufacturing lines subject to the standard, the 
owner or operator must measure formaldehyde emissions to the atmosphere 
from forming and, when present, curing and cooling processes, and sum 
the emissions from these processes. The owner or operator must, 
according to Sec. 63.1384, conduct the initial performance test for 
each new or existing RS manufacturing line while making the building 
insulation product with the highest loss on ignition (LOI) expected to 
be produced on that manufacturing line. Initial performance tests are 
required for new FA manufacturing lines producing heavy-density 
products and on new and existing FA manufacturing lines producing pipe 
products. Performance tests for each affected FA manufacturing line 
must be conducted while producing the highest LOI heavy-density or pipe 
product, as appropriate.
    During performance tests on affected RS and FA manufacturing lines, 
the owner or operator must record, as specified in Sec. 63.1384, the 
LOI and density of each product for each line tested, the free 
formaldehyde content of the resin(s) used during the tests, and the 
binder formulation(s) used during the tests. The performance tests must 
be conducted using the resin having the highest free formaldehyde 
content that the owner or operator expects to use on that line. If the 
owner or operator uses process modifications to comply with the 
emission limits for affected RS or FA manufacturing lines, the owner or 
operator must monitor and record the process parameter(s) and establish 
the process parameter limit(s) that will be used to monitor the 
performance of the process modifications following the performance 
tests. If a wet scrubbing control device is used to control 
formaldehyde emissions from affected RS or FA manufacturing lines, the 
owner or operator must continuously monitor and record the scrubber 
parameters and establish the operating limits of the pressure drop 
across each scrubber, the scrubbing liquid flow rate to each scrubber, 
and the identity and feed rate of any chemical additive. Where a 
thermal incinerator is used to comply with the emission limit for 
formaldehyde, the owner or operator is required to continuously measure 
and record the incinerator operating temperature during the performance 
test and determine the average temperature during each 1-hour test run. 
The average of the three test runs will be used to monitor compliance.
    Under Sec. 63.1384, the owner or operator may seek to broaden or 
extend the operating limits established during the performance tests 
for affected control devices and processes by conducting additional 
performance tests to demonstrate compliance at the new limits.
    Under Sec. 63.1384, the owner or operator of RS and FA 
manufacturing lines may conduct short-term experimental production runs 
without conducting additional performance tests. The final rule 
requires the owner or operator to notify the Administrator at least 15 
days in advance of an experimental production run. The experimental 
runs must not exceed 1 week in duration unless a longer period is 
approved by the Administrator. The owner or operator may conduct the 
experimental production run unless notified of a decision to disapprove 
the run or unless notified of a request for additional information 
prior to the date of the run.

D. Monitoring and Operating Requirements

    Owners or operators of affected sources must submit, under 
Sec. 63.1383, an operations, maintenance, and monitoring plan as part 
of their application for a part 70 permit. The plan must include 
procedures for the proper operation and maintenance of processes and 
control devices used to comply with the emission limits as well as the 
corrective actions to be taken when control devices or process 
parameters deviate from allowable levels established during performance 
testing. The plan also must identify the procedures for the proper 
operation and maintenance of monitoring devices including periodic 
calibration and verification of accuracy.
    Section 63.1383 requires that each baghouse used on a glass-melting 
furnace be equipped with a bag leak detection system having an audible 
alarm that automatically sounds when an increase in particulate 
emissions above a predetermined level is detected. Such a device 
monitors the performance of the baghouse, detects an increase in PM 
emissions, and indicates that maintenance of the baghouse is needed. 
The operating limits of Sec. 63.1382 require the owner or operator to 
initiate corrective action within 1 hour of the alarm sounding 
according to the operations, maintenance, and monitoring plan. If the 
alarm is activated for more than 5 percent of the total operating time 
during the 6-month block reporting period, the owner or operator must 
develop and implement a Quality Improvement Plan (QIP). The QIP must be 
consistent with the compliance assurance monitoring rule, 40 CFR part 
64 subpart D (62 FR 54900, October 22, 1997).
    The monitoring requirements of Sec. 63.1383 require the owner or 
operator of each ESP used to control an affected glass-melting furnace 
to monitor and record the established ESP parameter(s) according to the 
procedures in the operations, maintenance, and monitoring plan. The 
final rule requires the owner or operator to initiate corrective action 
within 1 hour, according to the procedures in the facility's 
operations, maintenance, and monitoring plan, if the monitored

[[Page 31699]]

parameter(s) deviates from the limit(s) established during performance 
tests. If the monitored parameter(s) is outside the established 
limit(s) for more than 5 percent of the total operating time in a 6-
month block reporting period, the owner or operator must develop and 
implement a QIP. The owner or operator must operate the ESP such that 
the monitored parameter(s) does not deviate from the established 
limit(s) for more than 10 percent of the total operating time in a 6-
month block reporting period.
    Under Sec. 63.1383 of the final rule, the owner or operator of a 
cold top electric furnace, who complies with the PM emission limit 
without the use of an air pollution control device, must monitor and 
record the air temperature above the glass melt to monitor when the 
temperature exceeds the maximum temperature of 120  deg.C (250  deg.F) 
measured at a location 46 to 61 centimeters (18 to 24 inches) above the 
molten glass surface. The owner or operator must initiate corrective 
action within 1 hour according to Sec. 63.1382 if the average air 
temperature exceeds the maximum. If the air temperature as measured 
above the molten glass exceeds the maximum for more than 5 percent of 
the total operating time in a 6-month block reporting period, the owner 
or operator is required to develop and implement a QIP. The rule also 
requires that the owner or operator operate the cold top electric 
furnace so that the maximum temperature is not exceeded for more than 
10 percent of the total operating time in a 6-month block reporting 
period.
    The final rule (Sec. 63.1383) requires the owner or operator of a 
glass-melting furnace, which is not equipped with an air pollution 
control device for PM control and which is not a cold top electric 
furnace, to monitor the glass-melting furnace according to the 
procedures in the operation, maintenance, and monitoring plan. The plan 
must include the furnace operating parameter(s) and parameter limit(s) 
to be monitored to identify any operational problems, a monitoring 
schedule, and recordkeeping procedures. As required by Sec. 63.1382, 
the owner or operator must initiate corrective action within 1 hour if 
the monitored operating parameter(s) deviates from the limits 
established during the initial performance. The rule also requires the 
owner or operator to develop and implement a QIP if the monitored 
furnace operating parameter value(s) is outside the established 
limit(s) for more than 5 percent of the total operating time in a 6-
month block reporting period. The owner or operator must operate the 
affected glass-melting furnace so that the monitored furnace parameter 
value(s) is not outside the established limit(s) for more than 10 
percent of the total operating time in a 6-month block reporting 
period.
    The final rule, under Sec. 63.1383, requires the owner or operator 
to monitor and record the glass pull rate on all existing and new 
glass-melting furnaces. If the monitored pull rate exceeds by more than 
20 percent the average glass pull rate measured during the performance 
test, the owner or operator must initiate corrective action within 1 
hour as required by Sec. 63.1383. If the glass pull rate exceeds (by 
more than 20 percent) the average established during the performance 
test for more than 5 percent of the total operating time in a 6-month 
block reporting period, the owner or operator must develop and 
implement a QIP. The final rule requires the owner or operator to 
operate the glass-melting furnace so that the glass pull rate does not 
exceed (by more than 20 percent) the average established during the 
performance test for more than 10 percent of the total operating time 
in a 6-month block reporting period.
    If an incinerator is used to control formaldehyde emissions, 
Sec. 63.1383 requires that the owner or operator continuously monitor 
and record the operating temperature. Following the initial performance 
test, the operating limits of Sec. 63.1382 require that the owner or 
operator maintain the temperature so that the temperature, averaged 
over any 3-hour block period, does not fall below the average 
temperature established during the initial performance test. As 
required in Sec. 63.1383, the owner or operator must also annually 
inspect each incinerator to ensure its proper operation and 
maintenance. The rule specifies that, at a minimum, the following be 
included in the inspection:
    (1) Burners, pilot assemblies, and pilot sensing devices;
    (2) Adjustment of combustion air;
    (3) Internal structures, such as baffles;
    (4) Dampers, fans, and blowers;
    (5) Proper sealing;
    (6) Motors;
    (7) Refractory lining; and (8) Incinerator shell.
    Section 63.1383 of the final rule requires that the owner or 
operator, who uses a wet scrubbing control device to control 
formaldehyde emissions from affected RS or FA manufacturing lines, 
continuously monitor and record the gas pressure drop across each 
scrubber, the scrubbing liquid flow rate to each scrubber, and the 
identity and feed rate of any chemical added to the scrubbing liquid. 
As required in Sec. 63.1382, the owner or operator must initiate 
corrective action according to the procedures in the facility's 
operations, maintenance, and monitoring plan within 1 hour if the 
average scrubber parameter for any 3-hour block period deviates from 
the limit(s) established during the initial performance test. If any 
scrubber parameter is outside an established limit(s) for more than 5 
percent of the total operating time in a 6-month block reporting 
period, the owner or operator must develop and implement a QIP. The 
owner or operator must operate each affected scrubber such that none of 
the monitored parameters deviate from the established limits for more 
than 10 percent of the total operating time in a 6-month block 
reporting period.
    As required in Sec. 63.1383, the owner or operator who uses process 
modifications to comply with the emission limits for RS or FA 
manufacturing lines must establish a correlation between the 
parameter(s) to be monitored and formaldehyde emissions. The owner or 
operator must also include as part of the operations, maintenance, and 
monitoring plan information on how the process will be operated and 
maintained, the process parameter(s) to be monitored including the 
correlation between the parameter(s) and formaldehyde emissions, a 
monitoring schedule, and recordkeeping procedures to document proper 
operation of the process modifications. Section 63.1382 of the final 
rule requires the owner or operator to initiate corrective action 
within 1 hour of a deviation of a process parameter from the 
established limits and to develop and implement a QIP if the process 
parameter(s) is outside the established limit(s) for more than 5 
percent of the total operating time in a 6-month block reporting 
period. The owner or operator must operate the process so that the 
process modification parameters do not deviate from the established 
limits for more than 10 percent of the total operating time in a 6-
month block reporting period.
    Under Sec. 63.1383 of the final rule, the owner or operator must 
monitor and record the free formaldehyde content of each resin 
shipment, the formulation of each batch of binder used, and, every 8 
hours, product LOI and product density. Following the performance test, 
Sec. 63.1382 requires that the owner or operator must formulate binders 
using resins having a free formaldehyde content that does not exceed 
the free formaldehyde content range contained in the resin 
specification established and used during the performance test.

[[Page 31700]]

The final rule also requires that the owner or operator use a binder 
formulation that does not vary from the specification and operating 
range established during the performance test. For purposes of this 
rule, the addition of urea and lignin to the binder formulation is not 
considered changes in the formulation.
    Failure to operate all affected processes and control devices 
according to the operating limits of Sec. 63.1382, for example, failure 
to initiate corrective actions or failure to develop and implement a 
QIP, is considered a violation of the operating requirements.
    Under Sec. 63.1383 of this rule, the owner or operator may modify 
any of the control device or process parameter limits established 
during the initial performance tests provided that the owner or 
operator conducts additional emission testing to verify compliance at 
the new parameter levels.

E. Notification, Reporting, and Recordkeeping Requirements

    Notification, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements for MACT 
standards are included in the NESHAP general provisions (40 CFR part 
63, subpart A). The general provisions require: (1) Initial 
notification(s) of applicability, notification of performance test, and 
notification of compliance status; (2) a report of performance test 
results; (3) a startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan with semiannual 
reports of any reportable events; and (4) semiannual reports of 
deviations from established parameters. When deviations in operating 
parameters established during performance testing are reported, the 
owner or operator must report quarterly until a request to return to 
semiannual reporting is approved by the Administrator.
    In addition to the requirements of the general provisions, 
Sec. 63.1386 of the final rule specifies additional records to be kept 
by the owner or operator. The final rule requires the owner or operator 
to maintain records of the following, as applicable:
    (1) Bag leak detection system alarms, including the date and time 
of the alarm, when corrective actions were initiated, the cause of the 
alarm, an explanation of the corrective actions taken, and when the 
cause of the alarm was corrected;
    (2) ESP parameter value(s) used to monitor ESP performance, 
including any period when the value(s) deviates from the established 
limit(s), the date and time of the deviation, when corrective actions 
were initiated, the cause of the deviation, an explanation of the 
corrective actions taken, and when the cause of the deviation was 
corrected;
    (3) Air temperature above the molten glass in an uncontrolled cold 
top electric furnace, including any period when the temperature exceeds 
120  deg.C (250  deg.F) at a location 46 to 61 centimeters (18 to 24 
inches) above the molten glass surface, the date and time of the 
exceedance, when corrective actions were initiated, the cause of the 
exceedance, an explanation of the corrective actions taken, and when 
the cause of the exceedance was corrected;
    (4) Uncontrolled glass-melting furnace (that is not a cold top 
electric furnace) parameter value(s) used to monitor furnace 
performance, including any period when the value(s) exceeds the 
established limit(s), the date and time of the exceedance, when 
corrective actions were initiated, the cause of the exceedance, an 
explanation of the corrective actions taken, and when the cause of the 
exceedance was corrected;
    (5) The LOI and product density for each bonded product 
manufactured on a RS or FA manufacturing line, the free formaldehyde 
content of each resin shipment received and used in binder formulation, 
and the binder formulation of each batch;
    (6) Process parameter level(s) for RS and FA manufacturing lines 
that use process modifications to comply with the emission standards, 
including any period when the parameter level(s) deviates from the 
established limit(s), the date and time of the deviation, when 
corrective actions were initiated, the cause of the deviation, an 
explanation of the corrective actions taken, and when the cause of the 
deviation was corrected;
    (7) Scrubber pressure drop, scrubbing liquid flow rate, and any 
chemical additive (including chemical feed rate to the scrubber), 
including any period when a parameter level(s) deviates from the 
established limit(s), the date and time of the deviation, when 
corrective actions were initiated, the cause of the deviation, an 
explanation of the corrective actions taken, and when the cause of the 
deviation was corrected;
    (8) Incinerator operating temperature and results of periodic 
inspection of incinerator components, including any period when the 
temperature falls below the established average or the inspection 
identifies problems with the incinerator, the date and time of the 
problem, when corrective actions were initiated, the cause of the 
problem, an explanation of the corrective actions taken, and when the 
cause of the problem was corrected;
    (9) Glass pull rate, including any period when the pull rate 
exceeds the average pull rate established during the performance test 
by more than 20 percent, the date and time of the exceedance, when 
corrective actions were initiated, the cause of the exceedance, an 
explanation of the corrective actions taken, and when the cause of the 
exceedance was corrected.
    The NESHAP general provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A) require 
that records be maintained for at least 5 years from the date of each 
record. The owner or operator must retain the records onsite for at 
least 2 years but may retain the records offsite the remaining 3 years. 
The files may be retained on microfilm, on microfiche, on a computer, 
on computer disks, or on magnetic tape disks. Reports may be made on 
paper or on a labeled computer disk using commonly available and EPA-
compatible computer software.

III. Summary of Changes Since Proposal

    Changes have been incorporated into the final NESHAP for wool 
fiberglass manufacturing plants in response to comments on the proposed 
rule. The principal changes made since proposal are summarized below. 
Additional discussion of changes and the rationale for these changes is 
presented in section V of this preamble.

A. Definitions

    In response to public comments, minor clarifying changes were made 
in Sec. 63.1381 to the definitions of building insulation, glass pull 
rate, manufacturing line, and wool fiberglass. For purposes of 
clarifying the applicability of the rule and because of changes in the 
monitoring requirements for certain glass-melting furnaces, definitions 
were added for cold top electric furnace, new source, and wool 
fiberglass manufacturing facility.

B. Performance Test Provisions

    In response to public comments, the EPA revised the proposed 
provision that would allow the owner or operator of RS and FA 
manufacturing lines subject to the NESHAP to conduct short-term 
experimental production runs without conducting additional performance 
tests. Section 63.1384 of the final rule requires that the owner or 
operator notify the Administrator at least 15 days in advance of an 
experimental production run. The duration of the test run may not 
exceed 1 week unless the Administrator approves a longer period. The 
Administrator may disapprove the experimental production run or request 
additional information but such disapproval or request for additional 
information must be made prior to the date of the experimental 
production run.

[[Page 31701]]

    Other revisions clarify the proposed requirements for performance 
testing by specifying the frequency for monitoring and recording 
process and/or control device parameters during performance tests. The 
requirements to establish process and control device parameter limits 
for compliance monitoring are more appropriately a part of the 
requirements for performance testing and, thus, were moved from the 
monitoring requirements section to the performance test requirements 
section. The requirement for RS manufacturing lines to use the most 
frequently manufactured building insulation when conducting performance 
tests was deleted from the proposed definition of building insulation. 
A requirement was added to the performance testing provisions 
(Sec. 63.1384) for affected RS and FA manufacturing lines to conduct 
performance test while manufacturing the product having the highest LOI 
expected to be produced on the affected line. Because a glass-melting 
furnace may supply more than one manufacturing line, the final rule 
clarifies that, in addition to the furnace glass pull rate, the glass 
pull rate for the manufacturing line must also be monitored during the 
performance test.
    Methods for measuring formaldehyde emissions from RS and FA 
manufacturing lines were contained in the proposed rule. Because the 
Agency now has an FTIR method (Method 320) that can be used at other 
sources, a self-validating method is no longer necessary. Method 318 
was modified by removing the spiking procedures, which simplifies use 
of the method. The EPA has also clarified that this method is only 
applicable at mineral wool and wool fiberglass manufacturing sources. 
In response to comments, the final rule also contains editorial and 
clarifying changes in Method 318.

C. Monitoring Requirements

    The monitoring requirements section in the proposed rule specified, 
for each control device and process, the parameter that was to be 
monitored. In the final rule, the section on monitoring requirements 
was revised. In the final rule, the monitoring requirements section 
(Sec. 63.1383) specifies that process or control device parameters must 
be monitored as well as monitoring frequency. The final rule recognizes 
that a deviation of a process or control device parameter from a level 
established during a performance test is more appropriately a violation 
of an operating limit rather than a violation of an emission limit. The 
operating limits are part of the standard and are specified in 
Sec. 63.1382.
    The proposed rule stated that the owner or operator of each 
affected source had to submit an operations, maintenance, and 
monitoring plan containing information on the proper operation and 
maintenance of process modifications and control devices, the 
parameter(s) to be monitored that would be used to determine 
compliance, and corrective actions to be taken when monitoring 
indicated a deviation from the limit(s) established during the 
performance tests. The final rule (Sec. 63.1383) clarifies that the 
operations, maintenance, and monitoring plan must also include 
procedures for the proper operation and maintenance of all monitoring 
devices. As proposed, each baghouse used on a glass-melting furnace 
must be equipped with a bag leak detection system having an audible 
alarm that automatically sounds when an increase in particulate 
emissions above a predetermined level is detected. In response to 
comments and for consistency with other regulations, Sec. 63.1383 of 
the final standard requires that the monitor be capable of detecting PM 
emissions at concentrations of 10 milligrams per actual cubic meter 
(0.0044 grains per actual cubic foot). Also, because guidelines for the 
operation and maintenance of triboelectric bag leak detection systems 
have become available since proposal, these guidelines are specifically 
cited in the rule. The EPA's ``Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection 
Guidance'' (EPA-454/R-98-015, September 1997) is available on the TTN 
under Emission Measurement Center (EMC), Continuous Emission 
Monitoring. To maintain consistency with bag leak detection system 
requirements in other regulations and to allow owners and operators 
flexibility to make necessary bag leak detection system adjustments, 
the final rule specifies that following initial adjustment, the owner 
or operator may adjust the range, averaging period, alarm set points, 
or alarm delay time as specified in the approved operations, 
maintenance, and monitoring plan. The final rule further specifies that 
in no event may the range be increased by more than 100 percent or 
decreased by more than 50 percent over a 365 day period unless a 
responsible official, as defined in Sec. 63.2 of the general provisions 
in subpart A of 40 CFR part 63, certifies in writing to the 
Administrator that the fabric filter has been inspected and found to be 
in good operating condition. The final rule clarifies that the alarm 
must be located in an area where appropriate plant personnel will be 
able to hear it and that in response to the sounding of an alarm, the 
owner or operator must complete corrective actions in a timely manner. 
The final rule also specifies some example corrective actions for bag 
leak detection system alarms that may be included in the operations, 
maintenance, and monitoring plan.
    Under the proposed rule, the owner or operator would continuously 
monitor and record the glass pull rate on all existing and new glass-
melting furnaces. As a result of comments, Sec. 63.1383 of the final 
rule clarifies what is meant by continuous monitoring of the glass pull 
rate. Similar revisions were made to the monitoring requirements for 
other control devices and process parameters to clarify the 
requirements for monitoring frequency. Revisions were made to the 
proposed rule to clarify when corrective actions are required in 
response to monitored levels that are outside the limits established 
during performance tests.
    Under the proposed NESHAP, the owner or operator would be in 
violation of the standard if the binder formulation deviated from the 
formulation specifications used during the performance test. In 
response to comments, the final rule states that the addition of urea 
and lignin to the binder formulation does not constitute a change in 
binder formulation, and the operating limits in Sec. 63.1382 for the 
binder formulation and the use of resins were clarified to incorporate 
this change.
    In response to comments, clarifying changes were made throughout 
the monitoring and operating requirements to indicate that because some 
control device or process parameters used for monitoring purposes may 
be established as minimum and/or maximum values, it is not always 
appropriate to have requirements that are in terms of exceeding control 
device or process parameter values. Other minor editorial changes were 
made throughout the monitoring and operating requirements to improve 
clarity.
    Consistent with the general provision requirements to operate and 
maintain air pollution equipment in a manner consistent with good air 
pollution control practices, the final rule contains specific 
provisions for the annual inspection of incinerators to ensure that 
they maintain their performance in reducing formaldehyde emissions.
    The proposed rule allowed the owner or operator of a glass-melting 
furnace that complies with the PM emission limit without the use of 
add-on control devices to determine the appropriate process parameter 
or control device parameter to monitor to determine compliance. Section 
63.1383 of the final

[[Page 31702]]

rule specifies that the owner or operator of a cold top electric 
furnace is required to monitor the air temperature above the molten 
glass surface. Section 63.1382 requires the owner or operator of a cold 
top electric furnace to operate the furnace such that the air 
temperature above the molten glass does not exceed 120  deg.C (250 
deg.F) more than 10 percent of total operating time in a 6-month block 
reporting period.

D. Notification, Reporting, and Recordkeeping Requirements

    The proposed rule specified additional records to be kept by the 
owner or operator in addition to the requirements of the general 
provisions. Editorial and clarifying revisions were made to the final 
notification, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements (Sec. 63.1386). 
The final rule specifies that the time that corrective action is 
initiated, as well as when the cause of the alarm, deviation, or 
exceedance was corrected, must be recorded. In addition, product 
density and glass pull rate were added to the list for which records 
are required to be kept, consistent with the monitoring provisions in 
Sec. 63.1383. Other revisions were made to the recordkeeping provisions 
consistent with changes made in the monitoring and operating 
provisions.

E. Display of OMB Control Numbers

    The EPA is today amending the table of currently approved 
information collection request (ICR) control numbers issued by OMB for 
various regulations. Today's amendment updates the table to list the 
information requirements contained in this final rule. The EPA will 
continue to present OMB control numbers in a consolidated table format 
to be codified in 40 CFR part 9 of the Agency's regulations, and in 
each CFR volume containing EPA regulations. The table lists the section 
numbers with reporting and recordkeeping requirements, and the current 
OMB control numbers. This listing of the OMB control numbers and its 
subsequent codification in the CFR satisfy the requirements of the 
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) and OMB's 
implementing regulations at 5 CFR part 1320.
    The ICR was previously subject to public notice and comment prior 
to OMB approval. As a result, EPA finds there is ``good cause'' under 
section 553(b)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 
553(b)(B)) to amend this table without prior notice and comment. Due to 
the technical nature of the table, further notice and comment would be 
unnecessary.

IV. Summary of Impacts

    The impacts estimated to be attributable to the final rule are the 
same as those estimated to be attributable to the proposed rule (62 FR 
15228, March 31, 1997). Nationwide emissions of formaldehyde from 
existing RS and FA manufacturing lines are estimated to be 1,770 Mg/yr 
(1,950 ton/yr) at the current level of control. Implementation of the 
final rule will reduce nationwide formaldehyde emissions from existing 
sources by 410 Mg/yr (450 ton/yr). Emission reductions from RS 
manufacturing lines producing building insulation constitute the entire 
reduction; there are no emission reductions from FA manufacturing 
lines. Reduction in formaldehyde emissions from new RS manufacturing 
lines is estimated to be 120 Mg/yr (130 ton/yr) in the fifth year of 
the standard. Total reductions in formaldehyde emissions from both 
existing and new RS manufacturing lines, therefore will be 530 Mg/yr 
(580 ton/yr). Nationwide PM emissions from existing glass-melting 
furnaces at the current level of control, are about 750 Mg/yr (830 ton/
yr). Under this rule, PM emissions from existing furnaces will be 
reduced by about 600 Mg/yr (660 ton/yr), of which 40 Mg/yr (50 ton/yr) 
is particulate matter less than 10 microns (m) in diameter 
(PM-10). The PM emission reduction from new glass-melting furnaces 
resulting from this rule is estimated to be 160 Mg/yr (180 ton/yr) in 
the fifth year of the standard. Under the final rule, PM emissions from 
existing and new furnaces will be reduced by a total of 760 Mg/yr (840 
ton/yr). Current nationwide emissions of metal HAPs from existing 
furnaces is 270 kg/yr (600 lb/yr). Under the final rule, metal HAP 
emissions from existing furnaces and new furnaces will be reduced by 9 
kg/yr (20 lb/yr) and 2 kg/yr (5 lb/yr), respectively.
    The EPA expects no water or solid waste impacts from the final 
rule. Because this standard is based on the use of baghouses, dry 
ESP's, thermal incinerators, and process modifications, there are no 
water pollution impacts. One existing RS manufacturing line uses 
scrubbers to control HAP emissions from forming. This rule will not 
affect the water pollution impact of the scrubbers. No additional 
sources are expected to add wet scrubbers for the control of HAP 
emissions. The PM captured by the baghouses added to existing 
uncontrolled electric furnaces will be recycled back to the furnace and 
no solid or hazardous waste is generated by the use of thermal 
incinerators. The EPA estimates that the rule will have a minor impact 
on energy consumption.
    The total nationwide capital cost for existing glass-melting 
furnaces under the final rule is $3.2 million; the total annual cost is 
$1.5 million. These costs result from the expected addition of 
baghouses to seven electric glass-melting furnaces as well as the 
monitoring costs of bag leak detection systems installed on baghouses 
and temperature monitors installed on cold top electric furnaces.
    The EPA estimates the nationwide capital costs of upgrading process 
modifications on 30 RS manufacturing lines to be $16.3 million, with 
annual costs of $4.8 million. None of the existing curing ovens that 
are uncontrolled for HAPs will have to add an incinerator. None of the 
FA manufacturing lines subject to the rule will require additional 
controls to comply with the emission standards. Therefore, no control 
costs are associated with complying with the final rule for FA 
manufacturing lines. For all RS and FA manufacturing lines subject to 
the standard, there is a one-time cost of $15,000 per line to establish 
the process parameter values for compliance monitoring. Because the 
parameters that the owner or operator is required to monitor on RS and 
FA manufacturing lines are currently monitored by the industry, no 
additional costs will be incurred for monitoring beyond the one-time 
cost of $15,000 per line.
    Total nationwide capital cost for the standard is estimated to be 
$19.5 million and annual nationwide cost is estimated to be $6.3 
million/yr, including installation, operation, and maintenance of 
emission control and monitoring systems.
    The economic analysis of the rule finds impacts at the facility and 
market-level to be modest. The average market price increases for both 
structural and nonstructural wool fiberglass are expected to be less 
than 0.5 percent. The resultant decreases in quantity demanded range 
from 0.17 percent for structural insulation markets to 0.22 percent for 
nonstructural insulation markets. None of the affected firms are 
classified as small businesses and no closures are predicted.

V. Summary of Responses to Major Comments

    The EPA received nine comment letters on the proposed NESHAP for 
wool fiberglass manufacturing. A copy of each comment letter is 
available for public inspection in the docket for the rulemaking 
(Docket No. A-95-24; see

[[Page 31703]]

the ADDRESSES section of this preamble for information on inspecting 
the docket). The EPA has had follow-up discussions with commenters 
regarding specific issues initially raised in their written comments. 
Copies of correspondence and other information exchanged between the 
EPA and the commenters during the post-comment period are available for 
public inspection in the docket for the rulemaking.
    All comments received by EPA were reviewed and carefully considered 
by the Agency. The EPA made changes to the rule where appropriate. A 
summary of responses to major comments received on the proposed rule is 
presented below. Additional discussion of the EPA's responses to public 
comments is presented in the document ``Summary of Public Comments and 
Responses on Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing NESHAP'' (Docket A-95-24, 
Item V-C-2).

A. Selection of Pollutants

    Comment: Two commenters stated that the issues of fine mineral 
fibers as HAP and the health effects of wool fiberglass particles 
greater than 1 micron in diameter should be addressed. One commenter 
stated that because the definition of fine mineral fibers is under 
review in response to new data on health effects and respirability, the 
EPA should address in the final preamble the possibility of a new 
definition for fine mineral fibers and its effects on the NESHAP.
    Response: The rule does not include emission limits for fine 
mineral fibers at wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities because EPA 
determined that the affected sources do not emit ``fine mineral 
fibers,'' as presently defined by the CAA. Fiberglass emissions from 
the affected manufacturing lines at wool fiberglass manufacturing 
facilities consist of clumps of fibers that are much larger than 10 
micrometers in diameter. The CAA, by contrast, defines ``fine mineral 
fibers'' to include mineral fiber emissions from facilities 
manufacturing or processing glass, rock, or slag fibers (or other 
mineral derived fibers) of average diameter 1 micrometer or less. (See 
section 112(b)(1)n.3.)

B. Selection of Emission Limits

    Comment: One commenter stated that the EPA determined the MACT 
floor for glass-melting furnaces inappropriately by establishing 
equipment standards as the MACT floor rather than a straightforward 
determination of numerical MACT floors as specified in section 
112(d)(3) of the CAA. Such an approach, according to the commenter, has 
allowed the EPA to use emissions data from the worst performing units 
to set emission limits that are no more stringent than the nearly 20-
year-old NSPS for glass-melting furnaces. The commenter believes that 
new baghouses and precipitators, and low-cost upgrades of existing 
ones, would allow much more stringent emission limits. The commenter 
stated that the EPA should base the MACT floors on the numerical 
emissions of the best performing 12 percent for existing sources and 
the best performing source for new sources and revise the emission 
limits to be consistent with the more stringent floors.
    Response: In determining the MACT floor, the EPA is not limited 
merely to examining emissions test data from the best performing 
sources and calculating the numeric mean of such sources' emission 
rates, because the test data may not translate directly to truly 
achievable standards. Rather, the Agency has taken alternative 
approaches to establishing MACT floors in the past, depending on the 
type, quality, and applicability of available emissions information. 
(See 62 FR 49051, 49060 (September 18, 1997) (describing various 
alternatives)).
    Among the standard options the EPA may follow is to establish the 
floor in consideration of the emissions control technology used by the 
best performing sources. Specifically, the Agency could establish the 
new source MACT floor based on the technology employed by the best-
controlled similar source and the existing source MACT floor based on 
the technology used by the average of the best-performing 12 percent of 
sources (or, in the case of categories with fewer than 30 sources, the 
average of the best-performing five sources). The EPA would then 
calculate a numeric MACT emission limit that is achievable in practice 
by sources employing that technology, in view of process and air 
pollution control device variability.
    The EPA followed this technology-driven approach in the present 
rulemaking. Available emissions information indicates that both 
baghouses and ESP's are equally effective in controlling PM emissions 
from glass-melting furnaces, and that the best performing sources in 
the wool fiberglass source category employ such technology. 
Accordingly, the Agency determined that either of these technologies, 
when well-designed and well-operated, would form the basis of the MACT 
floor for controlling emissions from glass-melting furnaces in this 
source category. The EPA then sought, consistent with the CAA, to 
express the MACT floor in terms of a numeric emissions limit. To do so, 
it evaluated existing test data from wool fiberglass facilities 
controlling glass-melting furnace emissions with baghouses and ESP's. 
Because the measured emission rates varied, even though each of the 
sources had well-operated and maintained air pollution control 
equipment, the Agency concluded that the measured rates were indicative 
of equipment and process variability. The EPA therefore established the 
MACT floor at an emission level achievable by the best performing 
technology, after accounting for normal operating variability.
    The Agency's approach in this rulemaking to determine the 
applicable MACT floors is consistent with the CAA. The CAA requires a 
standard that is ``achievable'' (42 U.S.C. 112(d)(2) (``Emission 
standards * * * shall require the maximum degree of reductions in 
emissions * * * that the Administrator * * * determines is achievable * 
* * '')). However, the commenter's insistence on setting the MACT floor 
based solely on a numeric average would require the Agency to establish 
a standard that, in light of normal and unavoidable control equipment 
and process variability, would not be achievable consistently by the 
best performing sources in the category. The EPA's method in the 
present rulemaking, by contrast, heeds Congress's attention to 
achievability and is a prudent exercise of the discretion the CAA 
grants the Agency ``to use its best engineering judgment in collecting 
and analyzing the (available emissions) data, and in assessing the 
data's comprehensiveness, accuracy, and variability, in order to 
determine which sources achieve the best emission reductions.'' (59 FR 
29196, 29199 (June 6, 1994)) (emphasis added). See also National Lime 
Association v. E.P.A., 627 F.2d 416, 431 n. 46 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (``to 
be achievable, we think a uniform standard must be capable of being met 
under most adverse conditions which can reasonably be expected to 
recur'').
    Comment: Two commenters stated that the EPA is not limited to 
setting emission limits at the MACT floors and thermal and catalytic 
incinerators could provide cost-effective 98 to 99 percent emission 
reductions on RS forming, curing, and cooling and FA forming and 
curing. According to one commenter, the emission limits for flame 
attenuation manufacturing lines are much too high; more appropriate 
formaldehyde emission limits are 0.068-0.078 lb/ton. Another commenter 
stated that emissions as low as 0.02 kg/Mg for RS manufacturing, 0.13 
kg/Mg for heavy-density flame attenuation

[[Page 31704]]

manufacturing, and 0.11 kg/Mg for pipe flame attenuation manufacturing 
could be achieved if catalytic oxidation were used to control forming, 
curing, and cooling processes. According to one commenter, the EPA 
should also consider other creative control technology applications, 
for example, ducting multiple sources, such as forming and curing, to a 
single control unit at a much lower cost than separate controls on 
individual process units while achieving 98-99 percent reduction in 
forming and curing oven emissions. One commenter also stated that the 
EPA has ignored the use of carbon-and zeolite-based concentrators, 
which can reduce exhaust volumes thereby reducing the size and cost of 
required control devices. According to this commenter, such 
concentrators can reduce exhaust volumes to be treated at least tenfold 
and sometimes much greater allowing the use of small control devices 
after forming and curing. Alternatively, the concentrated exhaust could 
be ducted to the curing oven or curing oven control device, thus 
allowing for low-cost control of emissions from the entire wool 
fiberglass manufacturing line.
    Response: Even though incineration is demonstrated on rotary spin 
curing ovens and is the MACT floor for new and existing rotary spin 
curing ovens, incineration is not demonstrated for rotary spin forming 
or for flame attenuation forming or flame attenuation curing. Further, 
concentrators are not demonstrated in this industry for any process. 
Although not demonstrated, the EPA considered the beyond-the-floor 
control option of incineration for both rotary spin forming and flame 
attenuation forming and curing processes. According to an analysis of 
the cost effectiveness of beyond-the-floor controls for RS 
manufacturing lines, the cost effectiveness of controlling formaldehyde 
emissions from forming using incineration is $183,000 per ton of 
formaldehyde reduction. On FA manufacturing lines producing heavy-
density products, the cost effectiveness of controlling formaldehyde 
emissions using incineration is $1.95 million per ton of formaldehyde 
reduction for forming processes and $13.5 million per ton of 
formaldehyde reduction for curing processes. On FA manufacturing lines 
producing pipe products, the cost effectiveness of controlling 
formaldehyde emissions using incineration is $2.7 million per ton of 
formaldehyde reduction for forming processes and $42.3 million per ton 
of formaldehyde reduction for curing processes. At this time, the EPA 
considers that the cost effectiveness of these beyond-the-floor 
controls are not reasonable. Therefore, the EPA rejected beyond-the-
floor controls and set emission standards at the MACT floor level.
    Comment: A commenter stated that, in light of formaldehyde 
classification as a Class B1, probable human carcinogen, the EPA should 
reconsider its use of the largest emission rates as the emission limits 
for the flame attenuation lines producing pipe products and heavy-
density products. According to one commenter, the emission limits for 
flame attenuation manufacturing lines are much too high with more 
appropriate formaldehyde emission limits being 0.068-0.078 lb/ton. 
Another commenter stated that emissions as low as 0.13 kg/Mg for heavy-
density flame attenuation manufacturing, and 0.11 kg/Mg for pipe flame 
attenuation manufacturing could be achieved if catalytic oxidation were 
used to control forming, curing, and cooling processes.
    Response: In establishing emission limits for affected FA 
manufacturing lines, the EPA followed the approach used for glass-
melting furnaces. Process modifications constitute the pollution 
control technology used by the best performing sources, and each of the 
facilities currently producing pipe insulation and heavy density 
products employ an identical level of process modifications on their FA 
manufacturing lines. Nevertheless, the measured emission rates of 
formaldehyde from these sources varied. Because the same degree of 
pollution control had different emission rates, the Agency concluded 
that operational variability accounted for the differences and factored 
such variability into the promulgated emission standard by setting the 
MACT floor at a level achievable in practice by sources using the 
identified technology.
    Comment: Because the EPA is allowing averaging of emissions across 
the various units making up the manufacturing line, one commenter 
stated that this tends to increase emissions above those associated 
with emission limits on separate process units and that EPA should set 
emission limits more stringent than the sum of the floor limits rather 
than allow averaging.
    Response: In setting emission limits for rotary spin and flame 
attenuation manufacturing lines, the EPA used available emissions data 
for each process unit (forming, curing, and cooling for rotary spin 
lines, and forming and curing for flame attenuation lines) to determine 
the appropriate MACT floor for each process unit in the line. The 
Agency then summed emissions from the MACT floors to create a resultant 
line-based MACT floor emission limit. Therefore, the EPA disagrees that 
these ``line'' limits are less stringent than the limits that would 
have been established for individual process units if the source 
subject to MACT had been defined more narrowly. For instance, because 
the MACT floor for cooling on rotary spin lines and for curing on flame 
attenuation lines is no control, the EPA may not have set emission 
limits for these sources if limits were set on a unit-by-unit basis. 
Thus, potentially higher emissions would have been allowed than are 
currently being allowed under this rule.

C. Monitoring

    Comment: Several comments were received concerning the use of bag 
leak detectors for monitoring baghouses used to control emissions from 
glass-melting furnaces. One commenter stated that because the industry 
standard for sensitivity of bag leak detectors is 0.0005 gr/dscf, the 
sensitivity cited in the rule should be changed from 0.0004 gr/dscf to 
0.0005 gr/dscf.
    According to another commenter, the requirements to install and 
operate bag leak detectors according to EPA guidance 
(Sec. 63.1384(b)(5)) will be difficult to enforce. The commenter 
further stated that if EPA wants the guidance to be followed, it should 
be contained in a rule; if not, it should be in the preamble as 
recommended practice.
    Another commenter asked if a source would be in violation of the 
standard if the alarm on the bag leak detector is activated more than 
10 percent of the total operating time during a 6-month block reporting 
period.
    Response: After reviewing technical data from a supplier of dust 
detection equipment and reviewing other EPA standards that require bag 
leak detectors for consistency, EPA has modified the required 
sensitivity level to ``0.0044 gr/dscf or less.'' This change does not 
alter the intended function of the bag leak detector, and is consistent 
with the industry standard for sensitivity and other EPA standards.
    Although EPA understands, as the one commenter indicated, that 
enforcement may be more difficult, there are currently no performance 
specifications available for bag leak detectors. EPA guidance on the 
use of triboelectric bag leak detectors has been developed and is cited 
in the rule along with information on its availability.

[[Page 31705]]

    In the proposed and final rules, the source would not be in 
violation of the standard if the alarm on the bag leak detector is 
activated more than 10 percent of the total operating time during a 6-
month block reporting period. The EPA issued a supplemental proposal 
(64 FR 7149, February 12, 1999) for wool fiberglass and other source 
categories which, along with other compliance issues, deals with the 
question as to the existence of a violation when the bag leak detector 
alarm is activated and how it is enforced. The EPA will consider all 
comments on the supplemental proposal and will amend this final rule in 
a future action as appropriate.
    Comment: For clarity with State agencies, one commenter recommended 
that the requirement in Sec. 63.1386(e) to ``continuously monitor and 
record'' as it applies to glass pull rate be defined to mean to 
install, operate and maintain pull rate monitoring and recording 
equipment per the written operations, maintenance, and monitoring plan.
    Response: Based on additional information provided by the 
commenter, EPA learned that the commenter would like the rule to 
clarify the monitoring and recording frequency associated with 
continuous monitors for glass pull rate. According to the commenter, 
the process is very steady and there is not a need for minute-by-minute 
monitoring and recordkeeping. EPA has revised the rule to require that 
on existing glass-melting furnaces with continuous monitors and on all 
new glass-melting furnaces, the glass pull rate must be monitored and 
recorded on an hourly basis and every 4 hours an average is to be 
calculated for purposes of determining compliance. At any time that a 
4-hour average pull rate exceeds the average pull rate established 
during the performance test by greater than 20 percent, corrective 
action must be initiated within 1 hour. If a 20 percent or more 
exceedance of the pull rate occurs for more than 5 percent of the total 
operating time in the 6-month block reporting period, a QIP is 
required. The final rule requires the owner operate the glass-melting 
furnace so that the glass pull rate does not exceed, by more than 20 
percent, the established maximum glass pull rate for more than 10 
percent of the total operating time in the 6-month block reporting 
period.
    As a result of this comment, the EPA examined the other monitoring 
provisions and made similar clarifying changes throughout the 
monitoring section as they pertain to monitoring frequency and 
averaging period.

D. Performance Tests

    Comment: One commenter recommended revisions to the monitoring 
requirements of Sec. 63.1386(g)(2) to clarify that if changes are made 
in the binder formulation that would not result in an increase in HAP 
emissions, such as the use of resin extenders, additional emissions 
testing is not required. The commenter explained that binder 
formulations are developed and controlled centrally by technical 
experts at each company and are not subject to modification at each 
plant. According to this commenter, normal practice is for any new 
binder formulation to be supported by additional emission tests. For 
reasons of material availability and cost reduction, the commenter 
explained that the binder formulation specification allows some 
flexibility for substituting resin extenders. During subsequent 
discussions with the commenter, it was explained that extenders replace 
components of the binder and that urea and lignin are used as extenders 
and replace some of the formaldehyde and phenol in the binder. The 
extenders act to dilute the binder and because the rate of application 
of the extended binder does not change, the emissions of formaldehyde 
and phenol are decreased.
    Response: Based on this comment as well as additional information 
supplied by the commenter on the use of extenders and their effects on 
formaldehyde emissions, the EPA has revised the rule to permit the 
addition of the extenders urea and lignin in the binder formulations 
without the need to perform additional emission testing.
    During discussions to obtain additional information from the 
commenter on this issue, the commenter was also concerned that the 
occasional switching of resin suppliers where the resins are made to 
the same specifications, may be interpreted by enforcement agencies as 
a change in resin and require additional emissions testing. The EPA 
does not intend for additional emission testing to be performed where a 
facility switches resin suppliers as long as the resin from the new 
supplier is made to the same product specifications as that used during 
the performance test.

VI. Administrative Requirements

A. Docket

    The docket is intended to be an organized file of the 
administrative records compiled by EPA. The docket is a dynamic file 
because information is added throughout the rulemaking development. The 
docketing system is intended to allow members of the public and 
industries involved to readily identify and locate documents so that 
they can effectively participate in the rulemaking process. Along with 
the proposed and promulgated standards and their preambles, the docket 
will contain the record in case of judicial review. (See section 
307(d)(7)(A) of the CAA.) The location of the official rulemaking 
record, including all public comments received on the proposed rule, is 
in the ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this preamble.

B. Executive Order 12866--Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the EPA 
must determine if a regulatory action is ``significant,'' and therefore 
subject to review by OMB and the requirements of the Executive Order. 
The Executive Order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as one 
that is likely to result in a rule that may:
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or 
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the 
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or 
communities;
    (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, 
user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligation of recipients 
thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in 
the Executive Order.
    It has been determined that this final rule is not a ``significant 
regulatory action'' under the terms of the Executive Order and is 
therefore not subject to OMB review.

C. Executive Order 12875--Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership

    Under Executive Order 12875, the EPA may not issue a regulation 
that is not required by statute and that creates a mandate upon a 
State, local or tribal government, unless the Federal government 
provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs 
incurred by those governments, or the EPA consults with those 
governments. If the EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 12875 
requires the EPA to provide to the OMB a description of the extent of 
the EPA's prior consultation with representatives of affected State, 
local and tribal governments, the nature of their concerns, copies of 
any written

[[Page 31706]]

communications from the governments, and a statement supporting the 
need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive Order 12875 
requires the EPA to develop an effective process permitting elected 
officials and other representatives of State, local and tribal 
governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in the development 
of regulatory proposals containing significant unfunded mandates.''
    Today's rule does not create a mandate on State, local or tribal 
governments. The rule does not impose any enforceable duties on State, 
local or tribal governments, because they do not own or operate any 
sources that would be subject to this rule. Accordingly, the 
requirements of section 1(a) of Executive Order 12875 do not apply to 
this rule.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub. 
L. 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the 
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal 
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, the 
EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-
benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal 
mandates'' that may result in expenditures by State, local, and tribal 
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 
million or more in any one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for 
which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally 
requires the EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of 
regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective 
or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the 
rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are 
inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows the EPA 
to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost-
effective or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator 
publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was 
not adopted. Before the EPA establishes any regulatory requirements 
that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, it must 
have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency 
plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small 
governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to have 
meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory 
proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and 
informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with 
the regulatory requirements.
    The EPA has determined that this rule does not contain a Federal 
mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for 
State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private 
sector in any one year. The EPA has determined that the total 
nationwide capital cost for the standard is approximately $19.5 million 
and the annual nationwide cost is approximately $6.3 million/yr. This 
rule is based partially on pollution prevention alternatives and on a 
manufacturing line approach. It is the least costly and burdensome 
approach for industry since the purchase of add-on control devices will 
be avoided by most of the industry. The only costs to State and local 
governments are those associated with implementing this standard 
through the permitting process, and these costs are recouped through 
permit fees. Thus, today's rule is not subject to the requirements of 
sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. In addition, the EPA has determined 
that this rule contains no regulatory requirements that might 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments because it does not 
impose any enforceable duties on small governments; such governments 
own or operate no sources subject to these rules and therefore would 
not be required to purchase control systems to meet the requirements of 
the rule.

E. Regulatory Flexibility

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency 
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to 
notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies 
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small 
businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental 
jurisdictions.
    EPA has determined that it is not necessary to prepare a regulatory 
flexibility analysis in connection with this final rule. EPA has also 
determined that this rule will not have a significant impact on a 
substantial number of small entities because no company that owns 
sources in the source category meets the criteria for small business. 
The Small Business Administration defines ``small business,'' as the 
term applies to SIC 3296, as a firm with fewer than 750 employees. None 
of the firms in the industry have fewer than 750 employees and, thus, 
are not small businesses by this criterion.

F. Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other 
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. This action is not 
a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule will be 
effective June 14, 1999.

G. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The OMB has approved the information collection requirements 
contained in this rule under the provisions of the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501 
et seq. and has assigned OMB control number 2060-0359.
    The information collection requirements include the notification, 
reporting, and recordkeeping requirements of the NESHAP general 
provisions, authorized under section 114 of the CAA, which are 
mandatory for all owners or operators subject to national emission 
standards. All information submitted to the EPA for which a claim of 
confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to Agency policies in 
40 CFR part 2, subpart B. This rule does not require any notifications 
or reports beyond those required by the general provisions. Subpart NNN 
does require additional records of specific information needed to 
determine compliance with the rule. These include records of: (1) Any 
bag leak detection system alarm, including the date and time, with a 
brief explanation of the cause of the alarm and the corrective action 
taken; (2) ESP parameter values, such as secondary voltage for each 
electrical field including any deviation outside the limits established 
during the performance test and a brief explanation of the cause of the 
deviation and the corrective action taken; (3) air temperature above 
the surface of the molten glass of a cold top electric furnace that 
does not use an add-on control device for PM emission control, 
including any air temperature above 120  deg.C (250  deg.F) with a 
brief explanation of the cause and the corrective action taken; (4) 
operating parameter(s) for uncontrolled glass melting furnace (that

[[Page 31707]]

is not a cold top electric furnace) that does not use an add-on control 
device for the control of PM emissions including any exceedance of the 
level established during the performance test and a brief explanation 
of the cause of the exceedance and the corrective action taken; (5) the 
free-formaldehyde content of the resin being used; (6) the formulation 
of the binder being used; (7) the product LOI and product density for 
each 8-hour period on a RS or FA manufacturing line subject to the 
NESHAP; (8) forming process modification parameter(s), including any 
period when the parameter level(s) deviate from the level(s) 
established during the performance test and a brief explanation of the 
cause of the deviation and the corrective action taken; (9) pressure 
drop, liquid flow rate, and information on chemical additives to the 
scrubbing liquid, including any period when there is a deviation from 
the levels established during the performance tests and a brief 
explanation of the cause and the corrective action taken; (10) 
incinerator operating temperature, including any 3-hour block period 
when the temperature falls below the level established during the 
performance test, and the results of the annual inspection, including 
any problems discovered during the inspection, with a brief explanation 
of the cause and, the corrective action taken; and (11) glass pull 
rate, including any period when the pull rate exceeds the average pull 
rate established during the performance test by more than 20 percent, 
with a brief explanation of the cause of the exceedance, the corrective 
action taken, and the time the corrective action was initiated. All 
records documenting corrective actions must include the time of the 
alarm, deviation, or exceedance and the time that the corrective action 
is initiated as well as when the cause of the alarm, deviation, or 
exceedance is corrected. Each of these information requirements is 
needed to determine compliance with the standards.
    The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden to industry 
for this collection is estimated at 17,100 labor hours per year at an 
annual cost of $548,000. This estimate includes a one-time performance 
test and report (with repeat tests where needed); one-time preparation 
of a startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan with semiannual reports of 
any event in which the procedures in the plan were not followed; 
semiannual excess emissions reports; notifications; and recordkeeping. 
The annualized capital cost associated with monitoring requirements is 
estimated at $41,000. The operation and maintenance cost is estimated 
at $3,000/yr.
    Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources 
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or 
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time 
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize 
technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating, and 
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and 
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to 
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; 
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; 
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; 
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's 
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15. The EPA 
is amending the table in 40 CFR part 9 of currently approved ICR 
control numbers issued by OMB for various regulations to list the 
information requirements contained in this final rule.

H. Pollution Prevention Act

    The Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 states that pollution should 
be prevented or reduced at the source whenever feasible. The emission 
standards for RS and FA manufacturing lines subject to the standard are 
formulated as line standards, i.e., the sum of the individual forming, 
curing, and cooling MACT floor emission levels for RS manufacturing 
lines and forming and curing MACT floor emission levels for certain FA 
manufacturing lines. By formulating the standard as a line standard, 
tradeoffs are allowed for existing facilities that will accomplish the 
same environmental results at lower costs and will encourage process 
modifications and pollution prevention alternatives. According to the 
industry, new RS manufacturing lines may be able to meet the line 
standard without the use of costly incinerators with their energy and 
other environmental impacts, such as increased nitrogen oxides 
(NOX) and sulfur oxides (SOX) emissions, by 
incorporating pollution prevention measures, such as binder 
reformulation and improved binder application efficiency. Pollution 
prevention alternatives will also increase binder utilization 
efficiency and reduce production costs for industry. In selecting the 
format of the emission standard for emissions from manufacturing lines, 
the EPA considered various alternatives such as setting separate 
emission limits for each process, i.e., forming, curing, and cooling. A 
line standard gives the industry greater flexibility in complying with 
the emission limits and is the least costly because industry can avoid 
the capital and annual operating and maintenance costs associated with 
the purchase of add-on control equipment by using pollution prevention 
measures.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act (NTTAA), Pub. L. 104-113 (March 7, 1996), directs the EPA to use 
voluntary consensus standards in regulatory and procurement activities 
unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise 
impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards 
(such as materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, 
and business practices) which are developed or adopted by voluntary 
consensus standard bodies. Where available and potentially applicable 
voluntary consensus standards are not used by EPA, the Act requires the 
Agency to provide Congress, through the OMB, an explanation for not 
using such standards. This section summarizes the EPA's response to the 
requirements of the NTTAA for the analytical test methods promulgated 
as part of this final rule.
    Consistent with the NTTAA, the EPA conducted searches to identify 
voluntary consensus standards for the EPA's emissions sampling and 
analysis reference methods and industry recommended materials analysis 
procedures cited in this rule. Candidate voluntary consensus standards 
for materials analysis were identified for product loss on ignition 
(LOI), product density, and free formaldehyde content. Consensus 
comments provided by industry experts were that the candidate standards 
did not meet industry materials analysis requirements. Therefore, EPA 
has determined these voluntary consensus standards were impractical for 
the wool fiberglass manufacturing NESHAP. The EPA, in consultation with 
the North American Insulation Manufacturers Association (NAIMA), has 
formulated industry-specific materials analysis, consensus standards 
which are promulgated in this rule.

[[Page 31708]]

    The EPA search to identify voluntary consensus standards for the 
EPA's emissions sampling and analysis reference methods cited in this 
rule identified 17 candidate standards that appeared to have possible 
use in lieu of EPA standard reference methods. However, after reviewing 
available standards, EPA determined that 12 of the candidate consensus 
standards identified for measuring emissions of the HAPs or surrogates 
subject to emission standards in the rule would be not be practical due 
to lack of equivalency, documentation, validation data and other 
important technical and policy considerations. Five of the remaining 
candidate consensus standards are new standards under development that 
EPA plans to follow, review and consider adopting at a later date. This 
rule requires standard EPA emission test methods known to the industry 
and States. Approved alternative methods also may be used with prior 
EPA approval.

J. Executive Order 13045--Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any 
rule that(1) is determined to be ``economically significant'' as 
defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns the environmental 
health or safety risk that the EPA has reason to believe may have a 
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets 
both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or 
safety effects of the planned rule on children and explain why the 
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and 
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those 
regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that 
the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Order has the 
potential to influence the regulation. This final rule is not subject 
to Executive Order 13045 because it is not an economically significant 
regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866, and it is based 
on technology performance and not on health or safety risks.

K. Executive Order 13084--Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    Under Executive Order 13084, the EPA may not issue a regulation 
that is not required by statue, that significantly or uniquely affects 
the communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes 
substantial direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the 
Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct 
compliance costs incurred by the tribal governments, or the EPA 
consults with those governments. If the EPA complies by consulting, 
Executive Order 13084 requires the EPA to provide to the OMB, in a 
separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a 
description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with 
representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature 
of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the 
regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires the EPA to 
develop an effective process permitting elected officials and other 
representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to provide meaningful 
and timely input in the development of regulatory policies on matters 
that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.''
    Today's rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the 
communities of Indian tribal governments. No wool fiberglass 
manufacturing facilities are owned or operated by Indian tribal 
governments. Accordingly, the requirements of section 3(b) of Executive 
Order 13084 do not apply to this rule.

List of Subjects

 40 CFR Part 9

    Environmental protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirement

40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous 
substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Wool fiberglass 
manufacturing.

    Dated: May 13, 1999.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, parts 9 and 63 of title 
40, chapter I of the Code of Federal Regulations are amended as 
follows:

PART 9--OMB APPROVALS UNDER THE PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT

    1. The authority citation for part 9 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 135 et seq., 136-136y; 15 U.S.C. 2001, 2003, 
2005, 2006, 2601-2671; 21 U.S.C. 331j, 346a, 348; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 33 
U.S.C. 1251 et. seq., 1311, 1313d, 1314, 1318, 1321, 1326, 1330, 
1342, 1344, 1345 (d) and (e), 1361; E.O. 11735, 38 FR 21243, 3 CFR, 
1971-1975 Comp. p. 973; 42 U.S.C. 241, 242b, 243, 246, 300f, 300g, 
300g-1, 300g-2, 300g-3, 300g-4, 300g-5, 300g-6, 300j-1, 300j-2, 
300j-3, 300j-4, 300j-9, 1857 et seq., 6901-6992k, 7401-7671q, 7542, 
9601-9657, 11023, 11048.

    2. In Sec. 9.1, the table is amended by adding new entries in 
numerical order under the indicated heading to read as follows:


Sec. 9.1  OMB approvals under the Paperwork Reduction Act.

* * * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             OMB control
                      40 CFR citation                            No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                 *        *        *        *        *
   National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source
                             Categories \3\
 
 
                  *        *        *        *        *
63.1383....................................................    2060-0359
63.1386....................................................    2060-0359
63.1387....................................................    2060-0359
 
                 *        *        *        *        *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The ICRs referenced in this section of the table encompass the
  applicable general provisions contained in 40 CFR part 63, subpart A,
  which are not independent information collection requirements.

* * * * *

PART 63--NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS 
FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES

    3. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    4. Part 63 is amended by adding subpart NNN consisting of 
Secs. 63.1380 through 63.1399 to read as follows:

Subpart NNN--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 
for Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing

Sec.
63.1380  Applicability.
63.1381  Definitions.
63.1382  Emission standards.
63.1383  Monitoring requirements.
63.1384  Performance test requirements.
63.1385  Test methods and procedures.
63.1386  Notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements.
63.1387  Compliance dates.
63.1388--63.1399  [Reserved]

    Table 1 to Subpart NNN of part 63--Applicability of general 
provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A) to subpart NNN.

Appendix A to Subpart NNN of part 63--Method for the determination 
of LOI
Appendix B to Subpart NNN of part 63--Free formaldehyde analysis of 
insulation resins by hydroxylamine hydrochloride
Appendix C to Subpart NNN of part 63--Method for the determination 
of product density

[[Page 31709]]

Subpart NNN--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants for Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing


Sec. 63.1380  Applicability.

    (a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, 
the requirements of this subpart apply to the owner or operator of each 
wool fiberglass manufacturing facility that is a major source or is 
located at a facility that is a major source.
    (b) The requirements of this subpart apply to emissions of 
hazardous air pollutants (HAPs), as measured according to the methods 
and procedures in this subpart, emitted from the following new and 
existing sources at a wool fiberglass manufacturing facility subject to 
this subpart:
    (1) Each new and existing glass-melting furnace located at a wool 
fiberglass manufacturing facility;
    (2) Each new and existing rotary spin wool fiberglass manufacturing 
line producing a bonded wool fiberglass building insulation product; 
and
    (3) Each new and existing flame attenuation wool fiberglass 
manufacturing line producing a bonded pipe product and each new flame 
attenuation wool fiberglass manufacturing line producing a bonded 
heavy-density product.
    (c) The requirements of this subpart do not apply to a wool 
fiberglass manufacturing facility that the owner or operator 
demonstrates to the Administrator is not a major source as defined in 
Sec. 63.2.
    (d) The provisions of this part 63, subpart A that apply and those 
that do not apply to this subpart are specified in Table 1 of this 
subpart.


Sec. 63.1381  Definitions.

    Terms used in this subpart are defined in the Clean Air Act, in 
Sec. 63.2, or in this section as follows:
    Bag leak detection system means systems that include, but are not 
limited to, devices using triboelectric, light scattering, and other 
effects to monitor relative or absolute particulate matter (PM) 
emissions.
    Bonded means wool fiberglass to which a phenol-formaldehyde binder 
has been applied.
    Building insulation means bonded wool fiberglass insulation, having 
a loss on ignition of less than 8 percent and a density of less than 32 
kilograms per cubic meter (kg/m3) (2 pounds per cubic foot 
[lb/ft3]).
    Cold top electric furnace means an all-electric glass-melting 
furnace that operates with a temperature of 120  deg.C (250  deg.F) or 
less as measured at a location 46 to 61 centimeters (18 to 24 inches) 
above the molten glass surface.
    Flame attenuation means a process used to produce wool fiberglass 
where molten glass flows by gravity from melting furnaces, or pots, to 
form filaments that are drawn down and attenuated by passing in front 
of a high-velocity gas burner flame.
    Glass-melting furnace means a unit comprising a refractory vessel 
in which raw materials are charged, melted at high temperature, 
refined, and conditioned to produce molten glass. The unit includes 
foundations, superstructure and retaining walls, raw material charger 
systems, heat exchangers, melter cooling system, exhaust system, 
refractory brick work, fuel supply and electrical boosting equipment, 
integral control systems and instrumentation, and appendages for 
conditioning and distributing molten glass to forming processes. The 
forming apparatus, including flow channels, is not considered part of 
the glass-melting furnace.
    Glass pull rate means the mass of molten glass that is produced by 
a single glass-melting furnace or that is used in the manufacture of 
wool fiberglass at a single manufacturing line in a specified time 
period.
    Hazardous Air Pollutant (HAP) means any air pollutant listed in or 
pursuant to section 112(b) of the Clean Air Act.
    Heavy-density product means bonded wool fiberglass insulation 
manufactured on a flame attenuation manufacturing line and having a 
loss on ignition of 11 to 25 percent and a density of 8 to 48 kg/m\3\ 
(0.5 to 3 lb/ft \3\).
    Incinerator means an enclosed air pollution control device that 
uses controlled flame combustion to convert combustible materials to 
noncombustible gases.
    Loss on ignition (LOI) means the percent decrease in weight of wool 
fiberglass after it has been ignited. The LOI is used to monitor the 
weight percent of binder in wool fiberglass.
    Manufacturing line means the manufacturing equipment for the 
production of wool fiberglass that consists of a forming section where 
molten glass is fiberized and a fiberglass mat is formed and which may 
include a curing section where binder resin in the mat is thermally set 
and a cooling section where the mat is cooled.
    New source means any affected source the construction or 
reconstruction of which is commenced after March 31, 1997.
    Pipe product means bonded wool fiberglass insulation manufactured 
on a flame attenuation manufacturing line and having a loss on ignition 
of 8 to 14 percent and a density of 48 to 96 kg/m \3\ (3 to 6 lb/
ft\3\).
    Rotary spin means a process used to produce wool fiberglass 
building insulation by forcing molten glass through numerous small 
orifices in the side wall of a spinner to form continuous glass fibers 
that are then broken into discrete lengths by high-velocity air flow. 
Any process used to produce bonded wool fiberglass building insulation 
by a process other than flame attenuation is considered rotary spin.
    Wool fiberglass means insulation materials composed of glass fibers 
made from glass produced or melted at the same facility where the 
manufacturing line is located.
    Wool fiberglass manufacturing facility means any facility 
manufacturing wool fiberglass on a rotary spin manufacturing line or on 
a flame attenuation manufacturing line.


Sec. 63.1382  Emission standards

    (a) Emission limits--(1) Glass-melting furnaces. On and after the 
date the initial performance test is completed or required to be 
completed under Sec. 63.7 of this part, whichever date is earlier, the 
owner or operator shall not discharge or cause to be discharged into 
the atmosphere in excess of 0.25 kilogram (kg) of particulate matter 
(PM) per megagram (Mg) (0.5 pound [lb] of PM per ton) of glass pulled 
for each new or existing glass-melting furnace.
    (2) Rotary spin manufacturing lines. On and after the date the 
initial performance test is completed or required to be completed under 
Sec. 63.7 of this part, whichever date is earlier, the owner or 
operator shall not discharge or cause to be discharged into the 
atmosphere in excess of:
    (i) 0.6 kg of formaldehyde per megagram (1.2 lb of formaldehyde per 
ton) of glass pulled for each existing rotary spin manufacturing line; 
and
    (ii) 0.4 kg of formaldehyde per megagram (0.8 lb of formaldehyde 
per ton) of glass pulled for each new rotary spin manufacturing line.
    (3) Flame attenuation manufacturing lines. On and after the date 
the initial performance test is completed or required to be completed 
under Sec. 63.7 of this part, whichever date is earlier, the owner or 
operator shall not discharge or cause to be discharged into the 
atmosphere in excess of:
    (i) 3.9 kg of formaldehyde per megagram (7.8 lb of formaldehyde per 
ton) of glass pulled for each new flame attenuation manufacturing line 
that produces heavy-density wool fiberglass; and
    (ii) 3.4 kg of formaldehyde per megagram (6.8 lb of formaldehyde 
per ton) of glass pulled from each existing

[[Page 31710]]

or new flame attenuation manufacturing line that produces pipe product 
wool fiberglass.
    (b) Operating limits. On and after the date on which the 
performance test required to be conducted by Secs. 63.7 and 63.1384 is 
completed, the owner or operator must operate all affected control 
equipment and processes according to the following requirements.
    (1)(i) The owner or operator must initiate corrective action within 
1 hour of an alarm from a bag leak detection system and complete 
corrective actions in a timely manner according to the procedures in 
the operations, maintenance, and monitoring plan.
    (ii) The owner or operator must implement a Quality Improvement 
Plan (QIP) consistent with the compliance assurance monitoring 
provisions of 40 CFR part 64, subpart D when the bag leak detection 
system alarm is sounded for more than 5 percent of the total operating 
time in a 6-month block reporting period.
    (2)(i) The owner or operator must initiate corrective action within 
1 hour when any 3-hour block average of the monitored electrostatic 
precipitator (ESP) parameter is outside the limit(s) established during 
the performance test as specified in Sec. 63.1384 and complete 
corrective actions in a timely manner according to the procedures in 
the operations, maintenance, and monitoring plan.
    (ii) The owner or operator must implement a QIP consistent with the 
compliance assurance monitoring provisions of 40 CFR part 64 subpart D 
when the monitored ESP parameter is outside the limit(s) established 
during the performance test as specified in Sec. 63.1384 for more than 
5 percent of the total operating time in a 6-month block reporting 
period.
    (iii) The owner or operator must operate the ESP such that the 
monitored ESP parameter is not outside the limit(s) established during 
the performance test as specified in Sec. 63.1384 for more than 10 
percent of the total operating time in a 6-month block reporting 
period.
    (3)(i) The owner or operator must initiate corrective action within 
1 hour when any 3-hour block average temperature of a cold top electric 
furnace as measured at a location 46 to 61 centimeters (18 to 24 
inches) above the molten glass surface, exceeds 120  deg.C (250  deg.F) 
and complete corrective actions in a timely manner according to the 
procedures in the operations, maintenance, and monitoring plan.
    (ii) The owner or operator of a cold top electric furnace must 
implement a QIP consistent with the compliance assurance monitoring 
provisions of 40 CFR part 64, subpart D when the temperature, as 
measured at a location 46 to 61 centimeters (18 to 24 inches) above the 
molten glass surface, exceeds 120  deg.C (250  deg.F) for more than 5 
percent of the total operating time in a 6-month block reporting 
period.
    (iii) The owner or operator must operate the cold top electric 
furnace such that the temperature does not exceed 120  deg.C (250 
deg.F) as measured at a location 46 to 61 centimeters (18 to 24 inches) 
above the molten glass surface, for more than 10 percent of the total 
operating time in a 6-month reporting period.
    (4)(i) The owner or operator must initiate corrective action within 
1 hour when any 3-hour block average value for the monitored 
parameter(s) for a glass-melting furnace, which uses no add-on controls 
and which is not a cold top electric furnace, is outside the limit(s) 
established during the performance test as specified in Sec. 63.1384 
and complete corrective actions in a timely manner according to the 
procedures in the operations, maintenance, and monitoring plan.
    (ii) The owner or operator must implement a QIP consistent with the 
compliance assurance monitoring provisions of 40 CFR Part 64 subpart D 
when the monitored parameter(s) is outside the limit(s) established 
during the performance test as specified in Sec. 63.1384 for more than 
5 percent of the total operating time in a 6-month block reporting 
period.
    (iii) The owner or operator must operate a glass-melting furnace, 
which uses no add-on controls and which is not a cold top electric 
furnace, such that the monitored parameter(s) is not outside the 
limit(s) established during the performance test as specified in 
Sec. 63.1384 for more than 10 percent of the total operating time in a 
6-month block reporting period.
    (5)(i) The owner or operator must initiate corrective action within 
1 hour when the average glass pull rate of any 4-hour block period for 
glass melting furnaces equipped with continuous glass pull rate 
monitors, or daily glass pull rate for glass melting furnaces not so 
equipped, exceeds the average glass pull rate established during the 
performance test as specified in Sec. 63.1384, by greater than 20 
percent and complete corrective actions in a timely manner according to 
the procedures in the operations, maintenance, and monitoring plan.
    (ii) The owner or operator must implement a QIP consistent with the 
compliance assurance monitoring provisions of 40 CFR part 64, subpart D 
when the glass pull rate exceeds, by more than 20 percent, the average 
glass pull rate established during the performance test as specified in 
Sec. 63.1384 for more than 5 percent of the total operating time in a 
6-month block reporting period.
    (iii) The owner or operator must operate each glass-melting furnace 
such that the glass pull rate does not exceed, by more than 20 percent, 
the average glass pull rate established during the performance test as 
specified in Sec. 63.1384 for more than 10 percent of the total 
operating time in a 6-month block reporting period.
    (6) The owner or operator must operate each incinerator used to 
control formaldehyde emissions from forming or curing such that any 3-
hour block average temperature in the firebox does not fall below the 
average established during the performance test as specified in 
Sec. 63.1384.
    (7)(i) The owner or operator must initiate corrective action within 
1 hour when the average pressure drop, liquid flow rate, or chemical 
feed rate for any 3-hour block period is outside the limits established 
during the performance tests as specified in Sec. 63.1384 for each wet 
scrubbing control device and complete corrective actions in a timely 
manner according to the procedures in the operations, maintenance, and 
monitoring plan.
    (ii) The owner or operator must implement a QIP consistent with the 
compliance assurance monitoring provisions of 40 CFR part 64, subpart D 
when any scrubber parameter is outside the limit(s) established during 
the performance test as specified in Sec. 63.1384 for more than 5 
percent of the total operating time in a 6-month block reporting 
period.
    (iii) The owner or operator must operate each scrubber such that 
each monitored parameter is not outside the limit(s) established during 
the performance test as specified in Sec. 63.1384 for more than 10 
percent of the total operating time in a 6-month block reporting 
period.
    (8)(i) The owner or operator must initiate corrective action within 
1 hour when the monitored process parameter level(s) is outside the 
limit(s) established during the performance test as specified in 
Sec. 63.1384 for the process modification(s) used to control 
formaldehyde emissions and complete corrective actions in a timely 
manner according to the procedures in the operations, maintenance, and 
monitoring plan.
    (ii) The owner or operator must implement a QIP consistent with the 
compliance assurance monitoring provisions of 40 CFR part 64, subpart D

[[Page 31711]]

when the process parameter(s) is outside the limit(s) established 
during the performance test as specified in Sec. 63.1384 for more than 
5 percent of the total operating time in a 6-month block reporting 
period.
    (iii) The owner or operator must operate the process modifications 
such that the monitored process parameter(s) is not outside the 
limit(s) established during the performance test as specified in 
Sec. 63.1384 for more than 10 percent of the total operating time in a 
6-month block reporting period.
    (9) The owner or operator must use a resin in the formulation of 
binder such that the free-formaldehyde content of the resin used does 
not exceed the free-formaldehyde range contained in the specification 
for the resin used during the performance test as specified in 
Sec. 63.1384.
    (10) The owner or operator must use a binder formulation that does 
not vary from the specification and operating range established and 
used during the performance test as specified in Sec. 63.1384. For the 
purposes of this standard, adding or increasing the quantity of urea 
and/or lignin in the binder formulation does not constitute a change in 
the binder formulation.


Sec. 63.1383  Monitoring requirements.

    On and after the date on which the performance test required to be 
conducted by Secs. 63.7 and 63.1384 is completed, the owner or operator 
must monitor all affected control equipment and processes according to 
the following requirements.
    (a) The owner or operator of each wool fiberglass manufacturing 
facility must prepare for each glass-melting furnace, rotary spin 
manufacturing line, and flame attenuation manufacturing line subject to 
the provisions of this subpart, a written operations, maintenance, and 
monitoring plan. The plan must be submitted to the Administrator for 
review and approval as part of the application for a part 70 permit. 
The plan must include the following information:
    (1) Procedures for the proper operation and maintenance of process 
modifications and add-on control devices used to meet the emission 
limits in Sec. 63.1382;
    (2) Procedures for the proper operation and maintenance of 
monitoring devices used to determine compliance, including quarterly 
calibration and certification of accuracy of each monitoring device 
according to the manufacturers's instructions; and
    (3) Corrective actions to be taken when process parameters or add-
on control device parameters deviate from the limit(s) established 
during initial performance tests.
    (b)(1) Where a baghouse is used to control PM emissions from a 
glass-melting furnace, the owner or operator shall install, calibrate, 
maintain, and continuously operate a bag leak detection system.
    (i) The bag leak detection system must be certified by the 
manufacturer to be capable of detecting PM emissions at concentrations 
of 10 milligrams per actual cubic meter (0.0044 grains per actual cubic 
foot) or less.
    (ii) The bag leak detection system sensor must produce output of 
relative PM emissions.
    (iii) The bag leak detection system must be equipped with an alarm 
system that will sound automatically when an increase in relative PM 
emissions over a preset level is detected and the alarm must be located 
such that it can be heard by the appropriate plant personnel.
    (iv) For positive pressure fabric filter systems, a bag leak 
detection system must be installed in each baghouse compartment or 
cell. If a negative pressure or induced air baghouse is used, the bag 
leak detection system must be installed downstream of the baghouse. 
Where multiple bag leak detection systems are required (for either type 
of baghouse), the system instrumentation and alarm may be shared among 
the monitors.
    (v) A triboelectric bag leak detection system shall be installed, 
operated, adjusted, and maintained in a manner consistent with the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency guidance, ``Fabric Filter Bag Leak 
Detection Guidance'' (EPA-454/R-98-015, September 1997). Other bag leak 
detection systems shall be installed, operated, adjusted, and 
maintained in a manner consistent with the manufacturer's written 
specifications and recommendations.
    (vi) Initial adjustment of the system shall, at a minimum, consist 
of establishing the baseline output by adjusting the range and the 
averaging period of the device and establishing the alarm set points 
and the alarm delay time.
    (vii) Following the initial adjustment, the owner or operator shall 
not adjust the range, averaging period, alarm setpoints, or alarm delay 
time except as detailed in the approved operations, maintenance, and 
monitoring plan required under paragraph (a) of this section. In no 
event shall the range be increased by more than 100 percent or 
decreased more than 50 percent over a 365-day period unless a 
responsible official as defined in Sec. 63.2 of the general provisions 
in subpart A of this part certifies that the baghouse has been 
inspected and found to be in good operating condition.
    (2) The operations, maintenance, and monitoring plan required by 
paragraph (a) of this section must specify corrective actions to be 
followed in the event of a bag leak detection system alarm. Example 
corrective actions that may be included in the plan include the 
following:
    (i) Inspecting the baghouse for air leaks, torn or broken bags or 
filter media, or any other conditions that may cause an increase in 
emissions.
    (ii) Sealing off defective bags or filter media.
    (iii) Replacing defective bags or filter media, or otherwise 
repairing the control device.
    (iv) Sealing off a defective baghouse compartment.
    (v) Cleaning the bag leak detection system probe, or otherwise 
repairing the bag leak detection system.
    (vi) Shutting down the process producing the particulate emissions.
    (c)(1) Where an ESP is used to control PM emissions from a glass-
melting furnace, the owner or operator must monitor the ESP according 
to the procedures in the operations, maintenance, and monitoring plan. 
(2)The operations, maintenance, and monitoring plan for the ESP must 
contain the following information:
    (i) The ESP operating parameter(s), such as secondary voltage of 
each electrical field, to be monitored and the minimum and/or maximum 
value(s) that will be used to identify any operational problems;
    (ii) A schedule for monitoring the ESP operating parameter(s);
    (iii) Recordkeeping procedures, consistent with the recordkeeping 
requirements of Sec. 63.1386, to show that the ESP operating 
parameter(s) is within the limit(s) established during the performance 
test; and
    (iv) Procedures for the proper operation and maintenance of the 
ESP.
    (d) The owner or operator must measure and record at least once per 
shift the temperature 46 to 61 centimeters (18 to 24 inches) above the 
surface of the molten glass in a cold top electric furnace that does 
not use any add-on controls to control PM emissions.
    (e)(1) Where a glass-melting furnace is operated without an add-on 
control device to control PM emissions, the owner or operator must 
monitor the glass-melting furnace according to the procedures in the 
operations, maintenance, and monitoring plan.
    (2) The operations, maintenance, and monitoring plan for the glass-
melting

[[Page 31712]]

furnace must contain the following information:
    (i) The operating parameter(s) to be monitored and the minimum and/
or maximum value(s) that will be used to identify any operational 
problems;
    (ii) A schedule for monitoring the operating parameter(s) of the 
glass-melting furnace;
    (iii) Recordkeeping procedures, consistent with the recordkeeping 
requirements of Sec. 63.1386, to show that the glass-melting furnace 
parameter(s) is within the limit(s) established during the performance 
test; and
    (iv) Procedures for the proper operation and maintenance of the 
glass-melting furnace.
    (f)(1) The owner or operator of an existing glass-melting furnace 
equipped with continuous glass pull rate monitors must monitor and 
record the glass pull rate on an hourly basis. For glass-melting 
furnaces that are not equipped with continuous glass pull rate 
monitors, the glass pull rate must be monitored and recorded once per 
day.
    (2) On any new glass-melting furnace, the owner or operator must 
install, calibrate, and maintain a continuous glass pull rate monitor 
that monitors and records on an hourly basis the glass pull rate.
    (g)(1) The owner or operator who uses an incinerator to control 
formaldehyde emissions from forming or curing shall install, calibrate, 
maintain, and operate a monitoring device that continuously measures 
and records the operating temperature in the firebox of each 
incinerator.
    (2) The owner or operator must inspect each incinerator at least 
once per year according to the procedures in the operations, 
maintenance, and monitoring plan. At a minimum, an inspection must 
include the following:
    (i) Inspect all burners, pilot assemblies, and pilot sensing 
devices for proper operation and clean pilot sensor, as necessary;
    (ii) Ensure proper adjustment of combustion air and adjust, as 
necessary;
    (iii) Inspect, when possible, internal structures, for example, 
baffles, to ensure structural integrity per the design specifications;
    (iv) Inspect dampers, fans, and blowers for proper operation;
    (v) Inspect for proper sealing;
    (vi) Inspect motors for proper operation;
    (vii) Inspect combustion chamber refractory lining and clean and 
repair/replace lining, as necessary;
    (viii) Inspect incinerator shell for corrosion and/or hot spots;
    (ix) For the burn cycle that follows the inspection, document that 
the incinerator is operating properly and make any necessary 
adjustments; and
    (x) Generally observe that the equipment is maintained in good 
operating condition.
    (xi) Complete all necessary repairs as soon as practicable.
    (h) The owner or operator who uses a wet scrubbing control device 
to control formaldehyde emissions must install, calibrate, maintain, 
and operate monitoring devices that continuously monitor and record the 
gas pressure drop across each scrubber and scrubbing liquid flow rate 
to each scrubber according to the procedures in the operations, 
maintenance, and monitoring plan. The pressure drop monitor is to be 
certified by its manufacturer to be accurate within 250 
pascals (1 inch water gauge) over its operating range, and 
the flow rate monitor is to be certified by its manufacturer to be 
accurate within 5 percent over its operating range. The 
owner or operator must also continuously monitor and record the feed 
rate of any chemical(s) added to the scrubbing liquid.
    (i)(1) The owner or operator who uses process modifications to 
control formaldehyde emissions must establish a correlation between 
formaldehyde emissions and a process parameter(s) to be monitored.
    (2) The owner or operator must monitor the established parameter(s) 
according to the procedures in the operations, maintenance, and 
monitoring plan.
    (3)The owner or operator must include as part of their operations, 
maintenance, and monitoring plan the following information:
    (i) Procedures for the proper operation and maintenance of the 
process;
    (ii) Process parameter(s) to be monitored to demonstrate compliance 
with the applicable emission limits in Sec. 63.1382. Examples of 
process parameters include LOI, binder solids content, and binder 
application rate;
    (iii) Correlation(s) between process parameter(s) to be monitored 
and formaldehyde emissions;
    (iv) A schedule for monitoring the process parameter(s); and
    (v) Recordkeeping procedures, consistent with the recordkeeping 
requirements of Sec. 63.1386, to show that the process parameter 
value(s) established during the performance test is not exceeded.
    (j) The owner or operator must monitor and record the free-
formaldehyde content of each resin shipment received and used in the 
formulation of binder.
    (k) The owner or operator must monitor and record the formulation 
of each batch of binder used.
    (l) The owner or operator must monitor and record at least once 
every 8 hours, the product LOI and product density of each bonded wool 
fiberglass product manufactured.
    (m) For all control device and process operating parameters 
measured during the initial performance tests, the owners or operators 
of glass-melting furnaces, rotary spin manufacturing lines or flame 
attenuation manufacturing lines subject to this subpart may change the 
limits established during the initial performance tests if additional 
performance testing is conducted to verify that, at the new control 
device or process parameter levels, they comply with the applicable 
emission limits in Sec. 63.1382. The owner or operator shall conduct 
all additional performance tests according to the procedures in this 
part 63, subpart A and in Sec. 63.1384.


Sec. 63.1384  Performance test requirements.

    (a) The owner or operator subject to the provisions of this subpart 
shall conduct a performance test to demonstrate compliance with the 
applicable emission limits in Sec. 63.1382. Compliance is demonstrated 
when the emission rate of the pollutant is equal to or less than each 
of the applicable emission limits in Sec. 63.1382. The owner or 
operator shall conduct the performance test according to the procedures 
in 40 CFR part 63, subpart A and in this section.
    (1) All monitoring systems and equipment must be installed, 
operational, and calibrated prior to the performance test.
    (2) Unless a different frequency is specified in this section, the 
owner or operator must monitor and record process and/or add-on control 
device parameters at least every 15 minutes during the performance 
tests. The arithmetic average for each parameter must be calculated 
using all of the recorded measurements for the parameter.
    (3) During each performance test, the owner or operator must 
monitor and record the glass pull rate for each glass-melting furnace 
and, if different, the glass pull rate for each rotary spin 
manufacturing line and flame attenuation manufacturing line. Record the 
glass pull rate every 15 minutes during any performance test required 
by this subpart and determine the arithmetic average of the recorded 
measurements for each test run and calculate the average of the three 
test runs.

[[Page 31713]]

    (4) The owner or operator shall conduct a performance test for each 
existing and new glass-melting furnace.
    (5) During the performance test, the owner or operator of a glass-
melting furnace controlled by an ESP shall monitor and record the ESP 
parameter level(s), as specified in the operations, maintenance, and 
monitoring plan, and establish the minimum and/or maximum value(s) that 
will be used to demonstrate compliance after the initial performance 
test.
    (6) During the performance test, the owner or operator of a cold 
top electric furnace that is not equipped with an add-on control device 
for PM emissions control, must monitor and record the temperature 46 to 
61 centimeters (18 to 24 inches) above the molten glass surface to 
ensure that the maximum temperature does not exceed 120  deg.C (250 
deg.F).
    (7) During the performance test, the owner or operator of a glass 
melting furnace (other than a cold top electric furnace) that is not 
equipped with an add-on control device for PM emissions control, must 
monitor and record the furnace parameter level, and establish the 
minimum and/or maximum value(s) that will be used to demonstrate 
compliance after the initial performance test.
    (8) The owner or operator must conduct a performance test for each 
rotary spin manufacturing line, subject to this subpart, while 
producing the building insulation with the highest LOI expected to be 
produced on that line; and for each flame attenuation manufacturing 
line, subject to this subpart, while producing the heavy-density 
product or pipe product with the highest LOI expected to be produced on 
the affected line.
    (9) The owner or operator of each rotary spin manufacturing line 
and flame attenuation manufacturing line regulated by this subpart must 
conduct performance tests using the resin with the highest free-
formaldehyde content. During the performance test of each rotary spin 
manufacturing line and flame attenuation manufacturing line regulated 
by this subpart, the owner or operator shall monitor and record the 
free-formaldehyde content of the resin, the binder formulation used, 
and the product LOI and density.
    (10) During the performance test, the owner or operator of a rotary 
spin manufacturing line or flame attenuation manufacturing line who 
plans to use process modifications to comply with the emission limits 
in Sec. 63.1382 must monitor and record the process parameter level(s), 
as specified in the operations, maintenance, and monitoring plan, which 
will be used to demonstrate compliance after the initial performance 
test.
    (11) During the performance test, the owner or operator of a rotary 
spin manufacturing line or flame attenuation manufacturing line who 
plans to use a wet scrubbing control device to comply with the emission 
limits in Sec. 63.1382 must continuously monitor and record the 
pressure drop across the scrubber, the scrubbing liquid flow rate, and 
addition of any chemical to the scrubber, including the chemical feed 
rate, and establish the minimum and/or maximum value(s) that will be 
used to determine compliance after the initial performance test.
    (12) During the performance test, the owner or operator of a rotary 
spin manufacturing line or affected flame attenuation manufacturing 
line shall continuously record the operating temperature of each 
incinerator and record the average during each 1-hour test; the average 
operating temperature of the three 1-hour tests shall be used to 
monitor compliance.
    (13) Unless disapproved by the Administrator, an owner or operator 
of a rotary spin or flame attenuation manufacturing line regulated by 
this subpart may conduct short-term experimental production runs using 
binder formulations or other process modifications where the process 
parameter values would be outside those established during performance 
tests without first conducting performance tests. Such runs must not 
exceed 1 week in duration unless the Administrator approves a longer 
period. The owner or operator must notify the Administrator and 
postmark or deliver the notification at least 15 days prior to 
commencement of the short-term experimental production runs. The 
Administrator must inform the owner or operator of a decision to 
disapprove or must request additional information prior to the date of 
the short-term experimental production runs. Notification of intent to 
perform an experimental short-term production run shall include the 
following information:
    (i) The purpose of the experimental production run;
    (ii) The affected line;
    (iii) How the established process parameters will deviate from 
previously approved levels;
    (iv) The duration of the experimental production run;
    (v) The date and time of the experimental production run; and
    (vi) A description of any emission testing to be performed during 
the experimental production run.
    (b) To determine compliance with the PM emission limit for glass-
melting furnaces, use the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14JN99.040

Where:

E = Emission rate of PM, kg/Mg (lb/ton) of glass pulled;
C = Concentration of PM, g/dscm 
(gr/dscf);
Q = Volumetric flow rate of exhaust gases, dscm/h (dscf/h);
K1 = Conversion factor, 1 kg/1,000 g (1 lb/7,000 gr); and
P = Average glass pull rate, Mg/h (tons/h).

    (c) To determine compliance with the emission limit for 
formaldehyde for rotary spin manufacturing lines and flame attenuation 
forming processes, use the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14JN99.041

Where:

    E = Emission rate of formaldehyde, kg/Mg (lb/ton) of glass pulled;
C = Measured volume fraction of formaldehyde, ppm;
MW = Molecular weight of formaldehyde, 30.03 g/g-mol;
Q = Volumetric flow rate of exhaust gases, dscm/h (dscf/h);
K1 = Conversion factor, 1 kg/1,000 g (1 lb/453.6 g);
K2 = Conversion factor, 1,000 L/m3 (28.3 L/
ft3);
K3 = Conversion factor, 24.45 L/g-mol; and
P = Average glass pull rate, Mg/h (tons/h).


Sec. 63.1385  Test methods and procedures.

    (a) The owner or operator shall use the following methods to 
determine compliance with the applicable emission limits:
    (1) Method 1 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A) for the selection of the 
sampling port location and number of sampling ports;
    (2) Method 2 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A) for volumetric flow rate;
    (3) Method 3 or 3A (40 CFR part 60, appendix A) for O2 
and CO2 for diluent measurements needed to correct the 
concentration measurements to a standard basis;
    (4) Method 4 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A) for moisture content of 
the stack gas;
    (5) Method 5 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A) for the concentration of 
PM. Each run shall consist of a minimum run time of 2 hours and a 
minimum sample volume of 60 dry standard cubic feet (dscf). The probe

[[Page 31714]]

and filter holder heating system may be set to provide a gas 
temperature no greater than 177 14  deg.C (350 
25  deg.F);
    (6) Method 316 or Method 318 (appendix A of this part) for the 
concentration of formaldehyde. Each run shall consist of a minimum run 
time of 1 hour;
    (7) Method contained in appendix A of this subpart for the 
determination of product LOI;
    (8) Method contained in appendix B of this subpart for the 
determination of the free-formaldehyde content of resin;
    (9) Method contained in appendix C of this subpart for the 
determination of product density;
    (10) An alternative method, subject to approval by the 
Administrator.
    (b) Each performance test shall consist of 3 runs. The owner or 
operator shall use the average of the three runs in the applicable 
equation for determining compliance.


Sec. 63.1386  Notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements.

    (a) Notifications. As required by Sec. 63.9(b) through (h) of this 
part, the owner or operator shall submit the following written initial 
notifications to the Administrator:
    (1) Notification for an area source that subsequently increases its 
emissions such that the source is a major source subject to the 
standard;
    (2) Notification that a source is subject to the standard, where 
the initial startup is before June 14, 2002.
    (3) Notification that a source is subject to the standard, where 
the source is new or has been reconstructed, the initial startup is 
after June 14, 2002, and for which an application for approval of 
construction or reconstruction is not required;
    (4) Notification of intention to construct a new major source or 
reconstruct a major source; of the date construction or reconstruction 
commenced; of the anticipated date of startup; of the actual date of 
startup, where the initial startup of a new or reconstructed source 
occurs after June 14, 2002, and for which an application for approval 
or construction or reconstruction is required (See Sec. 63.9(b)(4) and 
(5) of this part);
    (5) Notification of special compliance obligations;
    (6) Notification of performance test; and (7) Notification of 
compliance status.
    (b) Performance test report. As required by Sec. 63.10(d)(2) of the 
general provisions, the owner or operator shall report the results of 
the initial performance test as part of the notification of compliance 
status required in paragraph (a)(7) of this section.
    (c) Startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan and reports. (1) The 
owner or operator shall develop and implement a written plan as 
described in Sec. 63.6(e)(3) of this part that contains specific 
procedures to be followed for operating the source and maintaining the 
source during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction and a 
program of corrective action for malfunctioning process modifications 
and control systems used to comply with the standard. In addition to 
the information required in Sec. 63.6(e)(3), the plan shall include:
    (i) Procedures to determine and record the cause of the malfunction 
and the time the malfunction began and ended;
    (ii) Corrective actions to be taken in the event of a malfunction 
of a control device or process modification, including procedures for 
recording the actions taken to correct the malfunction or minimize 
emissions; and
    (iii) A maintenance schedule for each control device and process 
modification that is consistent with the manufacturer's instructions 
and recommendations for routine and long-term maintenance.
    (2) The owner or operator shall also keep records of each event as 
required by Sec. 63.10(b) of this part and record and report if an 
action taken during a startup, shutdown, or malfunction is not 
consistent with the procedures in the plan as described in 
Sec. 63.10(e)(3)(iv) of this part.
    (d) Recordkeeping. (1) As required by Sec. 63.10(b) of this part, 
the owner or operator shall maintain files of all information 
(including all reports and notifications) required by the general 
provisions and this subpart:
    (i) The owner or operator must retain each record for at least 5 
years following the date of each occurrence, measurement, maintenance, 
corrective action, report, or record. The most recent 2 years of 
records must be retained at the facility. The remaining 3 years of 
records may be retained off site;
    (ii) The owner or operator may retain records on microfilm, on a 
computer, on computer disks, on magnetic tape, or on microfiche; and
    (iii) The owner or operator may report required information on 
paper or on a labeled computer disk using commonly available and EPA-
compatible computer software.
    (2) In addition to the general records required by Sec. 63.10(b)(2) 
of this part, the owner or operator shall maintain records of the 
following information:
    (i) Any bag leak detection system alarms, including the date and 
time of the alarm, when corrective actions were initiated, the cause of 
the alarm, an explanation of the corrective actions taken, and when the 
cause of the alarm was corrected;
    (ii) ESP parameter value(s) used to monitor ESP performance, 
including any period when the value(s) deviated from the established 
limit(s), the date and time of the deviation, when corrective actions 
were initiated, the cause of the deviation, an explanation of the 
corrective actions taken, and when the cause of the deviation was 
corrected;
    (iii) Air temperature above the molten glass in an uncontrolled 
cold top electric furnace, including any period when the temperature 
exceeded 120  deg.C (250  deg.F) at a location 46 to 61 centimeters (18 
to 24 inches) above the molten glass surface, the date and time of the 
exceedance, when corrective actions were initiated, the cause of the 
exceedance, an explanation of the corrective actions taken, and when 
the cause of the exceedance was corrected;
    (iv) Uncontrolled glass-melting furnace (that is not a cold top 
electric furnace) parameter value(s) used to monitor furnace 
performance, including any period when the value(s) exceeded the 
established limit(s), the date and time of the exceedance, when 
corrective actions were initiated, the cause of the exceedance, an 
explanation of the corrective actions taken, and when the cause of the 
exceedance was corrected;
    (v) The formulation of each binder batch and the LOI and density 
for each product manufactured on a rotary spin manufacturing line or 
flame attenuation manufacturing line subject to the provisions of this 
subpart, and the free formaldehyde content of each resin shipment 
received and used in the binder formulation;
    (vi) Process parameter level(s) for RS and FA manufacturing lines 
that use process modifications to comply with the emission limits, 
including any period when the parameter level(s) deviated from the 
established limit(s), the date and time of the deviation, when 
corrective actions were initiated, the cause of the deviation, an 
explanation of the corrective actions taken, and when the cause of the 
deviation was corrected;
    (vii) Scrubber pressure drop, scrubbing liquid flow rate, and any 
chemical additive (including chemical feed rate to the scrubber), 
including any period when a parameter level(s) deviated from the 
established limit(s), the date and time of the deviation, when 
corrective actions were initiated, the cause of the deviation, an 
explanation of

[[Page 31715]]

the corrective actions taken, and when the cause of the deviation was 
corrected;
    (viii) Incinerator operating temperature and results of periodic 
inspection of incinerator components, including any period when the 
temperature fell below the established average or the inspection 
identified problems with the incinerator, the date and time of the 
problem, when corrective actions were initiated, the cause of the 
problem, an explanation of the corrective actions taken, and when the 
cause of the problem was corrected;
    (ix) Glass pull rate, including any period when the pull rate 
exceeded the average pull rate established during the performance test 
by more than 20 percent, the date and time of the exceedance, when 
corrective actions were initiated, the cause of the exceedance, an 
explanation of the corrective actions taken, and when the cause of the 
exceedance was corrected.
    (e) Excess emissions report. As required by Sec. 63.10(e)(3)(v) of 
this part, the owner or operator shall report semiannually if measured 
emissions are in excess of the applicable standard or a monitored 
parameter deviates from the levels established during the performance 
test. The report shall contain the information specified in 
Sec. 63.10(c) of this part as well as the additional records required 
by the recordkeeping requirements of paragraph (d) of this section. 
When no deviations have occurred, the owner or operator shall submit a 
report stating that no excess emissions occurred during the reporting 
period.


Sec. 63.1387  Compliance dates.

    (a) Compliance dates. The owner or operator subject to the 
provisions of this subpart shall demonstrate compliance with the 
requirements of this subpart by no later than:
    (1) June 14, 2002, for an existing glass-melting furnace, rotary 
spin manufacturing line, or flame attenuation manufacturing line; or
    (2) Upon startup for a new glass-melting furnace, rotary spin 
manufacturing line, or flame attenuation manufacturing line.
    (b) Compliance extension. The owner or operator of an existing 
source subject to this subpart may request from the Administrator an 
extension of the compliance date for the emission standards for one 
additional year if such additional period is necessary for the 
installation of controls. The owner or operator shall submit a request 
for an extension according to the procedures in Sec. 63.6(i)(3) of this 
part.


Secs. 63.1388--63.1399  [Reserved]

                   Table 1 to Subpart NNN of Part 63.--Applicability of General Provisions (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart A) to Subpart NNN
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Applies to  subpart
   General provisions citation           Requirement                 NNN                                        Explanation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.1(a)(1)-(a)(4)...............  Applicability...........  Yes.
63.1(a)(5)......................  ........................  No..................  [Reserved].
63.1(a)(6)-(a)(8)...............  ........................  Yes.
63.1(a)(9)......................  ........................  No..................  [Reserved].
63.1(a)(10)-(a)(14).............  ........................  Yes.
63.1(b)(1)-(b)(3)...............  Initial Applicability     Yes.
                                   Determination.
63.1(c)(1)-(c)(2)...............  Applicability After       Yes.
                                   Standard Established.
63.1(c)(3)......................  ........................  No..................  [Reserved].
63.1(c)(4)-(c)(5)...............  ........................  Yes.
63.1(d).........................  ........................  No..................  [Reserved].
63.1(e).........................  Applicability of Permit   Yes.
                                   Program.
63.2............................  Definitions.............  Yes.................  Additional definitions in Sec.  63.1381.
63.3(a)-(c).....................  Units and Abbreviations.  Yes.
63.4(a)(1)-(a)(3)...............  Prohibited Activities...  Yes.
63.4(a)(4)......................  ........................  No..................  [Reserved].
63.4(a)(5)......................  ........................  Yes.
63.4(b)-(c).....................  ........................  Yes.
63.5(a)(1)-(a)(2)...............  Construction/             Yes.
                                   Reconstruction.
63.5(b)(1)......................  Existing, New,            Yes.
                                   Reconstructed.
63.5(b)(2)......................  ........................  No..................  [Reserved].
63.5(b)(3)-(b)(6)...............  ........................  Yes.
63.5(c).........................  ........................  No..................  [Reserved].
63.5(d).........................  Approval of Construction/ Yes.
                                   Reconstruction.
63.5(e).........................  ........................  Yes.
63.5(f).........................  ........................  Yes.
63.6(a).........................  Compliance with           Yes.
                                   Standards and
                                   Maintenance
                                   Requirements.
63.6(b)(1)-(b)(5)...............  ........................  Yes.
63.6(b)(6)......................  ........................  No..................  [Reserved].
63.6(b)(7)......................  ........................  Yes.
63.6(c)(1)......................  Compliance Date for       Yes.................  Sec. 63.1387 specifies compliance dates.
                                   Existing Sources.
63.6(c)(2)......................  ........................  Yes.
63.6(c)(3)-(c)(4)...............  ........................  No..................  [Reserved].
63.6(c)(5)......................  ........................  Yes.
63.6(d).........................  ........................  No..................  [Reserved].
63.6(e)(1)-(e)(2)...............  Operation & Maintenance.  Yes.................  Sec.  63.1383 specifies operations/maintenance plan.
63.6(e)(3)......................  Startup, Shutdown         Yes.
                                   Malfunction Plan.
63.6(f)(1)-(f)(3)...............  Compliance with           Yes.
                                   Nonopacity Emission
                                   Standards.

[[Page 31716]]

 
63.6(g)(1)-(g)(3)...............  Alternative Nonopacity    Yes.
                                   Standard.
63.6(h).........................  Opacity/VE Standards....  No..................  Subpart NNN-no COMS, VE or opacity standards.
63.6(i)(1)-(i)(14)..............  Extension of Compliance.  Yes.
63.6(i)(15).....................  ........................  No..................  [Reserved].
63.6(i)(16).....................  ........................  Yes.
63.6(j).........................  Exemption from            Yes.
                                   Compliance.
63.7(a).........................  Performance Testing       Yes                   Sec.  63.1384 has specific requirements.
                                   Requirements.
63.7(b).........................  Notification............  Yes.
63.7(c).........................  Quality Assurance         Yes.
                                   Program/Test Plan.
63.7(d).........................  Performance Testing       Yes.
                                   Facilities.
63.7(e)(1)-(e)(4)...............  Conduct of Performance    Yes.
                                   Tests.
63.7(f).........................  Alternative Test Method.  Yes.
63.7(g).........................  Data Analysis...........  Yes.
63.7(h).........................  Waiver of Performance     Yes.
                                   Tests.
63.8(a)(1)-(a)(2)...............  Monitoring Requirements.  Yes.
63.8(a)(3)......................  ........................  No..................  [Reserved].
63.8(a)(4)......................  ........................  Yes.
63.8(b).........................  Conduct of Monitoring...  Yes.
63.8(c).........................  CMS Operation/            Yes.
                                   Maintenance.
63.8(d).........................  Quality Control Program.  Yes.
63.8(e).........................  Performance Evaluation    Yes.
                                   for CMS.
63.8(f).........................  Alternative Monitoring    Yes.
                                   Method.
63.8(g).........................  Reduction of Monitoring   Yes.
                                   Data.
63.9(a).........................  Notification              Yes.
                                   Requirements.
63.9(b).........................  Initial Notifications...  Yes.
63.9(c).........................  Request for Compliance    Yes.
                                   Extension.
63.9(d).........................  New Source Notification   Yes.
                                   for Special Compliance
                                   Requirements.
63.9(e).........................  Notification of           Yes.
                                   Performance Test.
63.9(f).........................  Notification of VE/       No..................  Opacity/VE tests not required.
                                   Opacity Test.
63.9(g).........................  Additional CMS            Yes.
                                   Notifications.
63.9(h)(1)-(h)(3)...............  Notification of           Yes.
                                   Compliance Status.
63.9(h)(4)......................  ........................  No..................  [Reserved].
63.9(h)(5)-(h)(6)...............  ........................  Yes.
63.9(i).........................  Adjustment of Deadlines.  Yes.
63.9(j).........................  Change in Previous        Yes.
                                   Information.
63.10(a)........................  Recordkeeping/Reporting.  Yes.
63.10(b)........................  General Requirements....  Yes.
63.10(c)(1).....................  Additional CMS            Yes.
                                   Recordkeeping.
63.10(c)(2)-(c)(4)..............  ........................  No..................  [Reserved].
63.10(c)(5)-(c)(8)..............  ........................  Yes.
63.10(c)(9).....................  ........................  No..................  [Reserved].
63.10(c)(10)-(15)...............  ........................  Yes.
63.10(d)(1).....................  General Reporting         Yes.
                                   Requirements.
63.10(d)(2).....................  Performance Test Results  Yes.
63.10(d)(3).....................  Opacity or VE             No..................  No limits for VE/opacity.
                                   Observations.
63.10(d)(4).....................  Progress Reports........  Yes.
63.10(d)(5).....................  Startup, Shutdown,        Yes.
                                   Malfunction Reports.
63.10(e)(1)-(e)(3)..............  Additional CMS Reports..  Yes.
63.10(e)(4).....................  Reporting COM Data......  No..................  COM not required.
63.10(f)........................  Waiver of Recordkeeping/  Yes.
                                   Reporting.
63.11(a)........................  Control Device            Yes.
                                   Requirements.
63.11(b)........................  Flares..................  No..................  Flares not applicable.
63.12...........................  State Authority and       Yes.
                                   Delegations.
63.13...........................  State/Regional Addresses  Yes.
63.14...........................  Incorporation by          No..................
                                   Reference.
63.15...........................  Availability of           Yes.
                                   Information.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 31717]]

Appendix A to Subpart NNN of Part 63--Method for the Determination of 
LOI

1. Purpose

    The purpose of this test is to determine the LOI of cured 
blanket insulation. The method is applicable to all cured board and 
blanket products.

2. Equipment

    2.1  Scale sensitive to 0.1 gram.
    2.2  Furnace designed to heat to at least 540  deg.C (1,000 
deg.F) and controllable to 10  deg.C (50  deg.F).
    2.3  Wire tray for holding specimen while in furnace.

3. Procedure

    3.1  Cut a strip along the entire width of the product that will 
weigh at least 10.0 grams. Sample should be free of dirt or foreign 
matter.

    Note: Remove all facing from sample.

    3.2  Cut the sample into pieces approximately 12 inches long, 
weigh to the nearest 0.1 gram and record. Place in wire tray. Sample 
should not be compressed or overhang on tray edges.

    Note: On air duct products, remove shiplaps and overspray.

    3.3  Place specimen in furnace at 540  deg.C (1,000  deg.F), 
10  deg.C (50  deg.F) for 15 to 20 minutes to insure 
complete oxidation. After ignition, fibers should be white and 
should not be fused together.
    3.4  Remove specimen from the furnace and cool to room 
temperature.
    3.5  Weigh cooled specimen and wire tray to the nearest 0.1 
gram. Deduct the weight of the wire tray and then calculate the loss 
in weight as a percent of the original specimen weight.

Appendix B to Subpart NNN of Part 63--Free Formaldehyde Analysis of 
Insulation Resins by Hydroxylamine Hydrochloride

1. Scope

    This method was specifically developed for water-soluble 
phenolic resins that have a relatively high free-formaldehyde (FF) 
content such as insulation resins. It may also be suitable for other 
phenolic resins, especially those with a high FF content.

2. Principle

    2.1  a. The basis for this method is the titration of the 
hydrochloric acid that is liberated when hydroxylamine hydrochloride 
reacts with formaldehyde to form formaldoxine:

HCHO + NH2OH:HCl  CH2:NOH + H2O + HCl

    b. Free formaldehyde in phenolic resins is present as monomeric 
formaldehyde, hemiformals, polyoxymethylene hemiformals, and 
polyoxymethylene glycols. Monomeric formaldehyde and hemiformals 
react rapidly with hydroxylamine hydrochloride, but the polymeric 
forms of formaldehyde must hydrolyze to the monomeric state before 
they can react. The greater the concentration of free formaldehyde 
in a resin, the more of that formaldehyde will be in the polymeric 
form. The hydrolysis of these polymers is catalyzed by hydrogen 
ions.
    2.2  The resin sample being analyzed must contain enough free 
formaldehyde so that the initial reaction with hydroxylamine 
hydrochloride will produce sufficient hydrogen ions to catalyze the 
depolymerization of the polymeric formaldehyde within the time 
limits of the test method. The sample should contain approximately 
0.3 grams free formaldehyde to ensure complete reaction within 5 
minutes.

3. Apparatus

    3.1  Balance, readable to 0.01 g or better.
    3.2  pH meter, standardized to pH 4.0 with pH 4.0 buffer and pH 
7 with pH 7.0 buffer.
    3.3  50-mL burette for 1.0 N sodium hydroxide.
    3.4  Magnetic stirrer and stir bars.
    3.5  250-mL beaker.
    3.6  50-mL graduated cylinder.
    3.7  100-mL graduated cylinder.
    3.8  Timer.

4. Reagents

    4.1  Standardized 1.0 N sodium hydroxide solution.
    4.2  Hydroxylamine hydrochloride solution, 100 grams per liter, 
pH adjusted to 4.00.
    4.3  Hydrochloric acid solution, 1.0 N and 0.1 N.
    4.4  Sodium hydroxide solution, 0.1 N.
    4.5  50/50 v/v mixture of distilled water and methyl alcohol.

5. Procedure

    5.1  Determine the sample size as follows:
    a. If the expected FF is greater than 2 percent, go to Part A to 
determine sample size.
    b. If the expected FF is less than 2 percent, go to Part B to 
determine sample size.
    c. Part A: Expected FF  2 percent.

Grams resin = 60/expected percent FF

    i. The following table shows example levels:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Sample
                Expected % free formaldehyde                 size, grams
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2..........................................................         30.0
5..........................................................         12.0
8..........................................................          7.5
10.........................................................          6.0
12.........................................................          5.0
15.........................................................          4.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ii. It is very important to the accuracy of the results that the 
sample size be chosen correctly. If the milliliters of titrant are 
less than 15 mL or greater than 30 mL, reestimate the needed sample 
size and repeat the tests.
    d. Part B: Expected FF < 2="" percent="" grams="" resin="30/expected" percent="" ff="" i.="" the="" following="" table="" shows="" example="" levels:="" ------------------------------------------------------------------------="" sample="" expected="" %="" free="" formaldehyde="" size,="" grams="" ------------------------------------------------------------------------="" 2..........................................................="" 15="" 1..........................................................="" 30="" 0.5........................................................="" 60="" ------------------------------------------------------------------------="" ii.="" if="" the="" milliliters="" of="" titrant="" are="" less="" than="" 5="" ml="" or="" greater="" than="" 30="" ml,="" reestimate="" the="" needed="" sample="" size="" and="" repeat="" the="" tests.="" 5.2="" weigh="" the="" resin="" sample="" to="" the="" nearest="" 0.01="" grams="" into="" a="" 250-ml="" beaker.="" record="" sample="" weight.="" 5.3="" add="" 100="" ml="" of="" the="" methanol/water="" mixture="" and="" stir="" on="" a="" magnetic="" stirrer.="" confirm="" that="" the="" resin="" has="" dissolved.="" 5.4="" adjust="" the="" resin/solvent="" solution="" to="" ph="" 4.0,="" using="" the="" prestandardized="" ph="" meter,="" 1.0="" n="" hydrochloric="" acid,="" 0.1="" n="" hydrochloric="" acid,="" and="" 0.1="" n="" sodium="" hydroxide.="" 5.5="" add="" 50="" ml="" of="" the="" hydroxylamine="" hydrochloride="" solution,="" measured="" with="" a="" graduated="" cylinder.="" start="" the="" timer.="" 5.6="" stir="" for="" 5="" minutes.="" titrate="" to="" ph="" 4.0="" with="" standardized="" 1.0="" n="" sodium="" hydroxide.="" record="" the="" milliliters="" of="" titrant="" and="" the="" normality.="" 6.="" calculations="" [graphic]="" [tiff="" omitted]="" tr14jn99.042="" 7.="" method="" precision="" and="" accuracy="" test="" values="" should="" conform="" to="" the="" following="" statistical="" precision:="" variance="0.005" standard="" deviation="0.07" 95%="" confidence="" interval,="" for="" a="" single="" determination="0.2" 8.="" author="" this="" method="" was="" prepared="" by="" k.="" k.="" tutin="" and="" m.="" l.="" foster,="" tacoma="" r&d="" laboratory,="" georgia-pacific="" resins,="" inc.="" (principle="" written="" by="" r.="" r.="" conner.)="" 9.="" references="" 9.1="" gpam="" 2221.2.="" 9.2="" pr&c="" tm="" 2.035.="" 9.3="" project="" report,="" comparison="" of="" free="" formaldehyde="" procedures,="" january="" 1990,="" k.="" k.="" tutin.="" [[page="" 31718]]="" appendix="" c="" to="" subpart="" nnn="" of="" part="" 63--method="" for="" the="" determination="" of="" product="" density="" 1.="" purpose="" the="" purpose="" of="" this="" test="" is="" to="" determine="" the="" product="" density="" of="" cured="" blanket="" insulation.="" the="" method="" is="" applicable="" to="" all="" cured="" board="" and="" blanket="" products.="" 2.="" equipment="" one="" square="" foot="" (12="" in.="" by="" 12="" in.)="" template,="" or="" templates="" that="" are="" multiples="" of="" one="" square="" foot,="" for="" use="" in="" cutting="" insulation="" samples.="" 3.="" procedure="" 3.1="" obtain="" a="" sample="" at="" least="" 30="" in.="" long="" across="" the="" machine="" width.="" sample="" should="" be="" free="" of="" dirt="" or="" foreign="" matter.="" 3.2="" lay="" out="" the="" cutting="" pattern="" according="" to="" the="" plant's="" written="" procedure="" for="" the="" designated="" product.="" 3.2="" cut="" samples="" using="" one="" square="" foot="" (or="" multiples="" of="" one="" square="" foot)="" template.="" 3.3="" weigh="" product="" and="" obtain="" area="" weight="">2).
    3.4  Measure sample thickness.
    3.5  Calculate the product density:
Density (lb/ft3) = area weight (lb/ft2)/
thickness (ft)
    5. Appendix A to part 63 is amended by adding in numerical order 
methods 316 and 318 to read as follows:

Appendix A To Part 63--Test Methods

* * * * *

Method 316--Sampling and Analysis for Formaldehyde Emissions From 
Stationary Sources in the Mineral Wool and Wool Fiberglass Industries

1.0  Introduction

    This method is applicable to the determination of formaldehyde, 
CAS Registry number 50-00-0, from stationary sources in the mineral 
wool and wool fiber glass industries. High purity water is used to 
collect the formaldehyde. The formaldehyde concentrations in the 
stack samples are determined using the modified pararosaniline 
method. Formaldehyde can be detected as low as 8.8  x  
1010 lbs/cu ft (11.3 ppbv) or as high as 1.8  x  
103 lbs/cu ft (23,000,000 ppbv), at standard conditions 
over a 1 hour sampling period, sampling approximately 30 cu ft.

2.0  Summary of Method

    Gaseous and particulate pollutants are withdrawn isokinetically 
from an emission source and are collected in high purity water. 
Formaldehyde present in the emissions is highly soluble in high 
purity water. The high purity water containing formaldehyde is then 
analyzed using the modified pararosaniline method. Formaldehyde in 
the sample reacts with acidic pararosaniline, and the sodium 
sulfite, forming a purple chromophore. The intensity of the purple 
color, measured spectrophotometrically, provides an accurate and 
precise measure of the formaldehyde concentration in the sample.

3.0  Definitions

    See the definitions in the General Provisions of this Subpart.

4.0  Interferences

    Sulfite and cyanide in solution interfere with the 
pararosaniline method. A procedure to overcome the interference by 
each compound has been described by Miksch, et al.

5.0  Safety. (Reserved)

6.0  Apparatus and Materials

    6.1  A schematic of the sampling train is shown in Figure 1. 
This sampling train configuration is adapted from EPA Method 5, 40 
CFR part 60, appendix A, procedures.

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

[[Page 31719]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14JN99.050



[[Page 31720]]

    The sampling train consists of the following components: probe 
nozzle, probe liner, pitot tube, differential pressure gauge, 
impingers, metering system, barometer, and gas density determination 
equipment.
    6.1.1  Probe Nozzle:  Quartz, glass, or stainless steel with 
sharp, tapered (30 deg. angle) leading edge. The taper shall be on 
the outside to preserve a constant inner diameter. The nozzle shall 
be buttonhook or elbow design. A range of nozzle sizes suitable for 
isokinetic sampling should be available in increments of 0.15 cm 
(\1/16\ in), e.g., 0.32 to 1.27 cm (\1/8\ to \1/2\ in), or larger if 
higher volume sampling trains are used. Each nozzle shall be 
calibrated according to the procedure outlined in Section 10.1.
    6.1.2  Probe Liner: Borosilicate glass or quartz shall be used 
for the probe liner. The probe shall be maintained at a temperature 
of 120 deg.C  14 deg.C (248 deg.F  
25 deg.F).
    6.1.3  Pitot Tube: The pitot tube shall be Type S, as described 
in Section 2.1 of EPA Method 2, 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, or any 
other appropriate device. The pitot tube shall be attached to the 
probe to allow constant monitoring of the stack gas velocity. The 
impact (high pressure) opening plane of the pitot tube shall be even 
with or above the nozzle entry plane (see Figure 2-6b, EPA Method 2, 
40 CFR part 60, appendix A) during sampling. The Type S pitot tube 
assembly shall have a known coefficient, determined as outlined in 
Section 4 of EPA Method 2, 40 CFR part 60, appendix A.
    6.1.4  Differential Pressure Gauge: The differential pressure 
gauge shall be an inclined manometer or equivalent device as 
described in Section 2.2 of EPA Method 2, 40 CFR part 60, appendix 
A. One manometer shall be used for velocity-head reading and the 
other for orifice differential pressure readings.
    6.1.5  Impingers: The sampling train requires a minimum of four 
impingers, connected as shown in Figure 1, with ground glass (or 
equivalent) vacuum-tight fittings. For the first, third, and fourth 
impingers, use the Greenburg-Smith design, modified by replacing the 
tip with a 1.3 cm inside diameters (\1/2\ in) glass tube extending 
to 1.3 cm (\1/2\ in) from the bottom of the flask. For the second 
impinger, use a Greenburg-Smith impinger with the standard tip. 
Place a thermometer capable of measuring temperature to within 
1 deg.C (2 deg.F) at the outlet of the fourth impinger for 
monitoring purposes.
    6.1.6  Metering System: The necessary components are a vacuum 
gauge, leak-free pump, thermometers capable of measuring 
temperatures within 3 deg.C (5.4 deg.F), dry-gas meter capable of 
measuring volume to within 1 percent, and related equipment as shown 
in Figure 1. At a minimum, the pump should be capable of 4 cfm free 
flow, and the dry gas meter should have a recording capacity of 0-
999.9 cu ft with a resolution of 0.005 cu ft. Other metering systems 
may be used which are capable of maintaining sample volumes to 
within 2 percent. The metering system may be used in conjunction 
with a pitot tube to enable checks of isokinetic sampling rates.
    6.1.7  Barometer: The barometer may be mercury, aneroid, or 
other barometer capable of measuring atmospheric pressure to within 
2.5 mm Hg (0.1 in Hg). In many cases, the barometric reading may be 
obtained from a nearby National Weather Service Station, in which 
case the station value (which is the absolute barometric pressure) 
is requested and an adjustment for elevation differences between the 
weather station and sampling point is applied at a rate of minus 2.5 
mm Hg (0.1 in Hg) per 30 m (100 ft) elevation increase (rate is plus 
2.5 mm Hg per 30 m (100 ft) of elevation decrease).
    6.1.8  Gas Density Determination Equipment: Temperature sensor 
and pressure gauge (as described in Sections 2.3 and 2.3 of EPA 
Method 2, 40 CFR part 60, appendix A), and gas analyzer, if 
necessary (as described in EPA Method 3, 40 CFR part 60, appendix 
A). The temperature sensor ideally should be permanently attached to 
the pitot tube or sampling probe in a fixed configuration such that 
the top of the sensor extends beyond the leading edge of the probe 
sheath and does not touch any metal. Alternatively, the sensor may 
be attached just prior to use in the field. Note, however, that if 
the temperature sensor is attached in the field, the sensor must be 
placed in an interference-free arrangement with respect to the Type 
S pitot openings (see Figure 2-7, EPA Method 2, 40 CFR part 60, 
appendix A). As a second alternative, if a difference of no more 
than 1 percent in the average velocity measurement is to be 
introduced, the temperature gauge need not be attached to the probe 
or pitot tube.

6.2  Sample Recovery

    6.2.1  Probe Liner: Probe nozzle and brushes; bristle brushes 
with stainless steel wire handles are required. The probe brush 
shall have extensions of stainless steel, Teflon TM, or 
inert material at least as long as the probe. The brushes shall be 
properly sized and shaped to brush out the probe liner, the probe 
nozzle, and the impingers.
    6.2.2  Wash Bottles: One wash bottle is required. Polyethylene, 
Teflon TM, or glass wash bottles may be used for sample 
recovery.
    6.2.3  Graduated Cylinder and/or Balance: A graduated cylinder 
or balance is required to measure condensed water to the nearest 1 
ml or 1 g. Graduated cylinders shall have division not >2 ml. 
Laboratory balances capable of weighing to  0.5 g are 
required.
    6.2.4  Polyethylene Storage Containers: 500 ml wide-mouth 
polyethylene bottles are required to store impinger water samples.
    6.2.5  Rubber Policeman and Funnel: A rubber policeman and 
funnel are required to aid the transfer of material into and out of 
containers in the field.

6.3  Sample Analysis

    6.3.1  Spectrophotometer--B&L 70, 710, 2000, etc., or 
equivalent; 1 cm pathlength cuvette holder.
    6.3.2  Disposable polystyrene cuvettes, pathlengh 1 cm, volume 
of about 4.5 ml.
    6.3.3  Pipettors--Fixed-volume Oxford pipet (250 l; 500 
l; 1000 l); adjustable volume Oxford or equivalent 
pipettor 1-5 ml model, set to 2.50 ml.
    6.3.4  Pipet tips for pipettors above.
    6.3.5  Parafilm, 2 deg. wide; cut into about 1'' squares.

7.0  Reagents

    7.1  High purity water: All references to water in this method 
refer to high purity water (ASTM Type I water or equivalent). The 
water purity will dictate the lower limits of formaldehyde 
quantification.
    7.2  Silica Gel: Silica gel shall be indicting type, 6-16 mesh. 
If the silica gel has been used previously, dry at 175 deg.C 
(350 deg.F) for 2 hours before using. New silica gel may be used as 
received. Alternatively, other types of desiccants (equivalent or 
better) may be used.
    7.3  Crushed Ice: Quantities ranging from 10-50 lbs may be 
necessary during a sampling run, depending upon ambient temperature. 
Samples which have been taken must be stored and shipped cold; 
sufficient ice for this purpose must be allowed.
    7.4  Quaternary ammonium compound stock solution: Prepare a 
stock solution of dodecyltrimethylammonium chloride (98 percent 
minimum assay, reagent grade) by dissolving 1.0 gram in 1000 ml 
water. This solution contains nominally 1000 g/ml 
quaternary ammonium compound, and is used as a biocide for some 
sources which are prone to microbial contamination.
    7.5  Pararosaniline: Weigh 0.16 grams pararosaniline (free base; 
assay of 95 percent or greater, C.I. 42500; Sigma P7632 has been 
found to be acceptable) into a 100 ml flask. Exercise care, since 
pararosaniline is a dye and will stain. Using a wash bottle with 
high-purity water, rinse the walls of the flask. Add no more than 25 
ml water. Then, carefully add 20 ml of concentrated hydrochloric 
acid to the flask. The flask will become warm after the addition of 
acid. Add a magnetic stir bar to the flask, cap, and place on a 
magnetic stirrer for approximately 4 hours. Then, add additional 
water so the total volume is 100 ml. This solution is stable for 
several months when stored tightly capped at room temperature.
    7.6  Sodium sulfite: Weigh 0.10 grams anhydrous sodium sulfite 
into a 100 ml flask. Dilute to the mark with high purity water. 
Invert 15-20 times to mix and dissolve the sodium sulfite. This 
solution must be prepared fresh every day.
    7.7  Formaldehyde standard solution: Pipet exactly 2.70 ml of 37 
percent formaldehyde solution into a 1000 ml volumetric flask which 
contains about 500 ml of high-purity water. Dilute to the mark with 
high-purity water. This solution contains nominally 1000 g/
ml of formaldehyde, and is used to prepare the working formaldehyde 
standards. The exact formaldehyde concentration may be determined if 
needed by suitable modification of the sodium sulfite method 
(Reference: J.F. Walker, Formaldehyde (Third Edition), 1964.). The 
1000 g/ml formaldehyde stock solution is stable for at 
least a year if kept tightly closed, with the neck of the flask 
sealed with Parafilm. Store at room temperature.
    7.8  Working formaldehyde standards: Pipet exactly 10.0 ml of 
the 1000 g/ml formaldehyde stock solution into a 100 ml 
volumetric flask which is about half full of high-purity water. 
Dilute to the mark with high-purity water, and invert 15-20 times to 
mix thoroughly. This solution contains nominally 100 g/ml 
formaldehyde. Prepare

[[Page 31721]]

the working standards from this 100 g/ml standard solution 
and using the Oxford pipets:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Volumetric
                                                 L     flask
                                                   or 100       volume
        Working standard, /mL          g/   (dilute to
                                                mL solution   mark with
                                                                water)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.250.........................................          250          100
0.500.........................................          500          100
1.00..........................................         1000          100
2.00..........................................         2000          100
3.00..........................................         1500           50
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The 100 g/ml stock solution is stable for 4 weeks if kept 
refrigerated between analyses. The working standards (0.25-3.00 
g/ml) should be prepared fresh every day, consistent with 
good laboratory practice for trace analysis. If the laboratory water 
is not of sufficient purity, it may be necessary to prepare the 
working standards every day. The laboratory must establish that the 
working standards are stable--DO NOT assume that your working 
standards are stable for more than a day unless you have verified 
this by actual testing for several series of working standards.

8.0  Sample Collection

    8.1  Because of the complexity of this method, field personnel 
should be trained in and experienced with the test procedures in 
order to obtain reliable results.

8.2  Laboratory Preparation

    8.2.1  All the components shall be maintained and calibrated 
according to the procedure described in APTD-0576, unless otherwise 
specified.
    8.2.2  Weigh several 200 to 300 g portions of silica gel in 
airtight containers to the nearest 0.5 g. Record on each container 
the total weight of the silica gel plus containers. As an 
alternative to preweighing the silica gel, it may instead be weighed 
directly in the impinger or sampling holder just prior to train 
assembly.

8.3  Preliminary Field Determinations

    8.3.1  Select the sampling site and the minimum number of 
sampling points according to EPA Method 1, 40 CFR part 60, appendix 
A, or other relevant criteria. Determine the stack pressure, 
temperature, and range of velocity heads using EPA Method 2, 40 CFR 
part 60, appendix A. A leak-check of the pitot lines according to 
Section 3.1 of EPA Method 2, 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, must be 
performed. Determine the stack gas moisture content using EPA 
Approximation Method 4,40 CFR part 60, appendix A, or its 
alternatives to establish estimates of isokinetic sampling rate 
settings. Determine the stack gas dry molecular weight, as described 
in EPA Method 2, 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, Section 3.6. If 
integrated EPA Method 3, 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, sampling is 
used for molecular weight determination, the integrated bag sample 
shall be taken simultaneously with, and for the same total length of 
time as, the sample run.
    8.3.2  Select a nozzle size based on the range of velocity heads 
so that it is not necessary to change the nozzle size in order to 
maintain isokinetic sampling rates below 28 l/min (1.0 cfm). During 
the run do not change the nozzle. Ensure that the proper 
differential pressure gauge is chosen for the range of velocity 
heads encountered (see Section 2.2 of EPA Method 2, 40 CFR part 60, 
appendix A).
    8.3.3  Select a suitable probe liner and probe length so that 
all traverse points can be sampled. For large stacks, to reduce the 
length of the probe, consider sampling from opposite sides of the 
stack.
    8.3.4  A minimum of 30 cu ft of sample volume is suggested for 
emission sources with stack concentrations not greater than 
23,000,000 ppbv. Additional sample volume shall be collected as 
necessitated by the capacity of the water reagent and analytical 
detection limit constraint. Reduced sample volume may be collected 
as long as the final concentration of formaldehyde in the stack 
sample is greater than 10 (ten) times the detection limit.
    8.3.5  Determine the total length of sampling time needed to 
obtain the identified minimum volume by comparing the anticipated 
average sampling rate with the volume requirement. Allocate the same 
time to all traverse points defined by EPA Method 1, 40 CFR part 60, 
appendix A. To avoid timekeeping errors, the length of time sampled 
at each traverse point should be an integer or an integer plus 0.5 
min.
    8.3.6  In some circumstances (e.g., batch cycles) it may be 
necessary to sample for shorter times at the traverse points and to 
obtain smaller gas-volume samples. In these cases, careful 
documentation must be maintained in order to allow accurate 
calculations of concentrations.

8.4  Preparation of Collection Train

    8.4.1  During preparation and assembly of the sampling train, 
keep all openings where contamination can occur covered with 
TeflonTM film or aluminum foil until just prior to 
assembly or until sampling is about to begin.
    8.4.2  Place 100 ml of water in each of the first two impingers, 
and leave the third impinger empty. If additional capacity is 
required for high expected concentrations of formaldehyde in the 
stack gas, 200 ml of water per impinger may be used or additional 
impingers may be used for sampling. Transfer approximately 200 to 
300 g of pre-weighed silica gel from its container to the fourth 
impinger. Care should be taken to ensure that the silica gel is not 
entrained and carried out from the impinger during sampling. Place 
the silica gel container in a clean place for later use in the 
sample recovery. Alternatively, the weight of the silica gel plus 
impinger may be determined to the nearest 0.5 g and recorded.
    8.4.3  With a glass or quartz liner, install the selected nozzle 
using a Viton-A O-ring when stack temperatures are <260 deg.c="" (500="" deg.f)="" and="" a="" woven="" glass-fiber="" gasket="" when="" temperatures="" are="" higher.="" see="" aptd-0576="" for="" details.="" other="" connection="" systems="" utilizing="" either="" 316="" stainless="" steel="" or="">TM ferrules 
may be used. Mark the probe with heat-resistant tape or by some 
other method to denote the proper distance into the stack or duct 
for each sampling point.
    8.4.4  Assemble the train as shown in Figure 1. During assembly, 
a very light coating of silicone grease may be used on ground-glass 
joints of the impingers, but the silicone grease should be limited 
to the outer portion (see APTD-0576) of the ground-glass joints to 
minimize silicone grease contamination. If necessary, 
TeflonTM tape may be used to seal leaks. Connect all 
temperature sensors to an appropriate potentiometer/display unit. 
Check all temperature sensors at ambient temperatures.
    8.4.5  Place crushed ice all around the impingers.
    8.4.6  Turn on and set the probe heating system at the desired 
operating temperature. Allow time for the temperature to stabilize.

8.5  Leak-Check Procedures

    8.5.1  Pre-test Leak-check: Recommended, but not required. If 
the tester elects to conduct the pre-test leak-check, the following 
procedure shall be used.
    8.5.1.1  After the sampling train has been assembled, turn on 
and set probe heating system at the desired operating temperature. 
Allow time for the temperature to stabilize. If a Viton-a O-ring or 
other leak-free connection is used in assembling the probe nozzle to 
the probe liner, leak-check the train at the sampling site by 
plugging the nozzle and pulling a 381 mm Hg (15 in Hg) vacuum.

    Note: A lower vacuum may be used, provided that the lower vacuum 
is not exceeded during the test.

    If a woven glass fiber gasket is used, do not connect the probe 
to the train during the leak-check. Instead, leak-check the train by 
first attaching a carbon-filled leak-check impinger to the inlet and 
then plugging the inlet and pulling a 381 mm Hg (15 in Hg) vacuum. 
(A lower vacuum may be used if this lower vacuum is not exceeded 
during the test.) Next connect the probe to the train and leak-check 
at about 25 mm Hg (1 in Hg) vacuum. Alternatively, leak-check the 
probe with the rest of the sampling train in one step at 381 mm Hg 
(15 in Hg) vacuum. Leakage rates in excess of (a) 4 percent of the 
average sampling rate or (b) 0.00057 m3/min (0.02 cfm), 
whichever is less, are unacceptable.
    8.5.1.2  The following leak-check instructions for the sampling 
train described in APTD-0576 and APTD-0581 may be helpful. Start the 
pump with the fine-adjust valve fully open and coarse-valve 
completely closed. Partially open the coarse-adjust valve and slowly 
close the fine-adjust valve until the desired vacuum is reached. Do 
not reverse direction of the fine-adjust valve, as liquid will back 
up into the train. If the desired vacuum is exceeded, either perform 
the leak-check at this higher vacuum or end the leak-check, as 
described below, and start over.
    8.5.1.3  When the leak-check is completed, first slowly remove 
the plug from the inlet to the probe. When the vacuum drops to 127 
mm (5 in) Hg or less, immediately close the coarse-adjust valve. 
Switch off the pumping system and reopen the fine-adjust valve. Do 
not reopen the fine-adjust valve until the coarse-adjust valve has 
been closed to prevent the liquid in the impingers from being forced 
backward in the sampling line and silica gel from being entrained 
backward into the third impinger.

[[Page 31722]]

    8.5.2  Leak-checks During Sampling Run:
    8.5.2.1  If, during the sampling run, a component change (e.g., 
impinger) becomes necessary, a leak-check shall be conducted 
immediately after the interruption of sampling and before the change 
is made. The leak-check shall be done according to the procedure 
described in Section 10.3.3, except that it shall be done at a 
vacuum greater than or equal to the maximum value recorded up to 
that point in the test. If the leakage rate is found to be no 
greater than 0.0057 m3/min (0.02 cfm) or 4 percent of the 
average sampling rate (whichever is less), the results are 
acceptable. If a higher leakage rate is obtained, the tester must 
void the sampling run.

    Note: Any correction of the sample volume by calculation reduces 
the integrity of the pollutant concentration data generated and must 
be avoided.

    8.5.2.2  Immediately after component changes, leak-checks are 
optional. If performed, the procedure described in section 8.5.1.1 
shall be used.
    8.5.3  Post-test Leak-check:
    8.5.3.1  A leak-check is mandatory at the conclusion of each 
sampling run. The leak-check shall be done with the same procedures 
as the pre-test leak-check, except that the post-test leak-check 
shall be conducted at a vacuum greater than or equal to the maximum 
value reached during the sampling run. If the leakage rate is found 
to be no greater than 0.00057 m3/min (0.02 cfm) or 4 
percent of the average sampling rate (whichever is less), the 
results are acceptable. If, however, a higher leakage rate is 
obtained, the tester shall record the leakage rate and void the 
sampling run.

8.6  Sampling Train Operation

    8.6.1  During the sampling run, maintain an isokinetic sampling 
rate to within 10 percent of true isokinetic, below 28 l/min (1.0 
cfm). Maintain a temperature around the probe of 120 deg.C 
 14 deg.C (248 deg.  25 deg.F).
    8.6.2  For each run, record the data on a data sheet such as the 
one shown in Figure 2. Be sure to record the initial dry-gas meter 
reading. Record the dry-gas meter readings at the beginning and end 
of each sampling time increment, when changes in flow rates are 
made, before and after each leak-check, and when sampling is halted. 
Take other readings required by Figure 2 at least once at each 
sample point during each time increment and additional readings when 
significant adjustments (20 percent variation in velocity head 
readings) necessitate additional adjustments in flow rate. Level and 
zero the manometer. Because the manometer level and zero may drift 
due to vibrations and temperature changes, make periodic checks 
during the traverse.

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

[[Page 31723]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14JN99.051



BILLING CODE 6560-50-C

[[Page 31724]]



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                               Gas sample                    Temperature
                                                                                   Pressure                temperature at dry                   of gas
                                                         Stack       Velocity    differential     Gas           gas meter          Filter      leaving
                                 Sampling    Vacuum   temperature      head         across       sample  ----------------------    holder     condenser
     Traverse point number      time  (e)    mm Hg        (T )     (P)     orifice      volume                         temperature    or last
                                   min.     (in. Hg)    deg.C (    mm  (in) H2O    meter  mm   m3  (ft3)    Inlet      Outlet      deg.C (     impinger
                                                         deg.F)                    H2O (in.                deg.C (    deg.C (      deg.F)      deg.C (
                                                                                     H2O)                   deg.F)     deg.F)                   deg.F)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                .........  .........  ...........  ............  ............  .........  .........  .........  ...........  ...........
                                .........  .........  ...........  ............  ............  .........  .........  .........  ...........  ...........
                                .........  .........  ...........  ............  ............  .........  .........  .........  ...........  ...........
                                .........  .........  ...........  ............  ............  .........  .........  .........  ...........  ...........
                                .........  .........  ...........  ............  ............  .........  .........  .........  ...........  ...........
    Total.....................  .........  .........  ...........  ............  ............  .........       Avg.       Avg.  ...........  ...........
                                                                                                         ----------------------
Average.......................  .........  .........  ...........  ............  ............  .........       Avg.  .........  ...........  ...........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    8.6.3  Clean the stack access ports prior to the test run to 
eliminate the chance of sampling deposited material. To begin 
sampling, remove the nozzle cap, verify that the probe heating 
system are at the specified temperature, and verify that the pitot 
tube and probe are properly positioned. Position the nozzle at the 
first traverse point, with the tip pointing directly into the gas 
stream. Immediately start the pump and adjust the flow to isokinetic 
conditions. Nomographs, which aid in the rapid adjustment of the 
isokinetic sampling rate without excessive computations, are 
available. These nomographs are designed for use when the Type S 
pitot tube coefficient is 0.84  0.02 and the stack gas 
equivalent density (dry molecular weight) is equal to 29 
 4. APTD-0576 details the procedure for using the 
nomographs. If the stack gas molecular weight and the pitot tube 
coefficient are outside the above ranges, do not use the nomographs 
unless appropriate steps are taken to compensate for the deviations.
    8.6.4  When the stack is under significant negative pressure 
(equivalent to the height of the impinger stem), take care to close 
the coarse-adjust valve before inserting the probe into the stack in 
order to prevent liquid from backing up through the train. If 
necessary, a low vacuum on the train may have to be started prior to 
entering the stack.
    8.6.5  When the probe is in position, block off the openings 
around the probe and stack access port to prevent unrepresentative 
dilution of the gas stream.
    8.6.6  Traverse the stack cross section, as required by EPA 
Method 1, 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, being careful not to bump the 
probe nozzle into the stack walls when sampling near the walls or 
when removing or inserting the probe through the access port, in 
order to minimize the chance of extracting deposited material.
    8.6.7  During the test run, make periodic adjustments to keep 
the temperature around the probe at the proper levels. Add more ice 
and, if necessary, salt, to maintain a temperature of <20 deg.c="" (68="" deg.f)="" at="" the="" silica="" gel="" outlet.="" 8.6.8="" a="" single="" train="" shall="" be="" used="" for="" the="" entire="" sampling="" run,="" except="" in="" cases="" where="" simultaneous="" sampling="" is="" required="" in="" two="" or="" more="" separate="" ducts="" or="" at="" two="" or="" more="" different="" locations="" within="" the="" same="" duct,="" or="" in="" cases="" where="" equipment="" failure="" necessitates="" a="" change="" of="" trains.="" an="" additional="" train="" or="" trains="" may="" also="" be="" used="" for="" sampling="" when="" the="" capacity="" of="" a="" single="" train="" is="" exceeded.="" 8.6.9="" when="" two="" or="" more="" trains="" are="" used,="" separate="" analyses="" of="" components="" from="" each="" train="" shall="" be="" performed.="" if="" multiple="" trains="" have="" been="" used="" because="" the="" capacity="" of="" a="" single="" train="" would="" be="" exceeded,="" first="" impingers="" from="" each="" train="" may="" be="" combined,="" and="" second="" impingers="" from="" each="" train="" may="" be="" combined.="" 8.6.10="" at="" the="" end="" of="" the="" sampling="" run,="" turn="" off="" the="" coarse-="" adjust="" valve,="" remove="" the="" probe="" and="" nozzle="" from="" the="" stack,="" turn="" off="" the="" pump,="" record="" the="" final="" dry="" gas="" meter="" reading,="" and="" conduct="" a="" post-test="" leak-check.="" also,="" check="" the="" pitot="" lines="" as="" described="" in="" epa="" method="" 2,="" 40="" cfr="" part="" 60,="" appendix="" a.="" the="" lines="" must="" pass="" this="" leak-check="" in="" order="" to="" validate="" the="" velocity-head="" data.="" 8.6.11="" calculate="" percent="" isokineticity="" (see="" method="" 2)="" to="" determine="" whether="" the="" run="" was="" valid="" or="" another="" test="" should="" be="" made.="" 8.7="" sample="" preservation="" and="" handling="" 8.7.1="" samples="" from="" most="" sources="" applicable="" to="" this="" method="" have="" acceptable="" holding="" times="" using="" normal="" handling="" practices="" (shipping="" samples="" iced,="" storing="" in="" refrigerator="" at="" 2="" deg.c="" until="" analysis).="" however,="" forming="" section="" stacks="" and="" other="" sources="" using="" waste="" water="" sprays="" may="" be="" subject="" to="" microbial="" contamination.="" for="" these="" sources,="" a="" biocide="" (quaternary="" ammonium="" compound="" solution)="" may="" be="" added="" to="" collected="" samples="" to="" improve="" sample="" stability="" and="" method="" ruggedness.="" 8.7.2="" sample="" holding="" time:="" samples="" should="" be="" analyzed="" within="" 14="" days="" of="" collection.="" samples="" must="" be="" refrigerated/kept="" cold="" for="" the="" entire="" period="" preceding="" analysis.="" after="" the="" samples="" have="" been="" brought="" to="" room="" temperature="" for="" analysis,="" any="" analyses="" needed="" should="" be="" performed="" on="" the="" same="" day.="" repeated="" cycles="" of="" warming="" the="" samples="" to="" room="" temperature/refrigerating/rewarming,="" then="" analyzing="" again,="" etc.,="" have="" not="" been="" investigated="" in="" depth="" to="" evaluate="" if="" analyte="" levels="" remain="" stable="" for="" all="" sources.="" 8.7.3="" additional="" studies="" will="" be="" performed="" to="" evaluate="" whether="" longer="" sample="" holding="" times="" are="" feasible="" for="" this="" method.="" 8.8="" sample="" recovery="" 8.8.1="" preparation:="" 8.8.1.1="" proper="" cleanup="" procedure="" begins="" as="" soon="" as="" the="" probe="" is="" removed="" from="" the="" stack="" at="" the="" end="" of="" the="" sampling="" period.="" allow="" the="" probe="" to="" cool.="" when="" the="" probe="" can="" be="" handled="" safely,="" wipe="" off="" all="" external="" particulate="" matter="" near="" the="" tip="" of="" the="" probe="" nozzle="" and="" place="" a="" cap="" over="" the="" tip="" to="" prevent="" losing="" or="" gaining="" particulate="" matter.="" do="" not="" cap="" the="" probe="" tightly="" while="" the="" sampling="" train="" is="" cooling="" because="" a="" vacuum="" will="" be="" created,="" drawing="" liquid="" from="" the="" impingers="" back="" through="" the="" sampling="" train.="" 8.8.1.2="" before="" moving="" the="" sampling="" train="" to="" the="" cleanup="" site,="" remove="" the="" probe="" from="" the="" sampling="" train="" and="" cap="" the="" open="" outlet,="" being="" careful="" not="" to="" lose="" any="" condensate="" that="" might="" be="" present.="" remove="" the="" umbilical="" cord="" from="" the="" last="" impinger="" and="" cap="" the="" impinger.="" if="" a="" flexible="" line="" is="" used,="" let="" any="" condensed="" water="" or="" liquid="" drain="" into="" the="" impingers.="" cap="" off="" any="" open="" impinger="" inlets="" and="" outlets.="" ground="" glass="" stoppers,="" teflon="">TM caps, or 
caps of other inert materials may be used to seal all openings.
    8.8.1.3  Transfer the probe and impinger assembly to an area 
that is clean and protected from wind so that the chances of 
contaminating or losing the sample are minimized.
    8.8.1.4  Inspect the train before and during disassembly, and 
note any abnormal conditions.
    8.8.1.5  Save a portion of the washing solution (high purity 
water) used for cleanup as a blank.
    8.8.2  Sample Containers:
    8.8.2.1  Container 1: Probe and Impinger Catches. Using a 
graduated cylinder, measure to the nearest ml, and record the volume 
of the solution in the first three impingers. Alternatively, the 
solution may be weighed to the nearest 0.5 g. Include any condensate 
in the probe in this determination. Transfer the combined impinger 
solution from the graduated cylinder into the polyethylene bottle. 
Taking care that dust on the outside of the probe or other exterior 
surfaces does not get into the sample, clean all surfaces to which 
the sample is exposed (including the probe nozzle, probe fitting, 
probe liner, first three impingers, and impinger connectors) with 
water. Use less than 400 ml for the entire waste (250 ml would be 
better, if possible). Add the rinse water to the sample container.
    8.8.2.1.1  Carefully remove the probe nozzle and rinse the 
inside surface with water from a wash bottle. Brush with a bristle 
brush and rinse until the rinse shows no visible particles, after 
which make a final rinse of the inside surface. Brush and rinse the 
inside parts of the Swagelok (or equivalent) fitting with water in a 
similar way.
    8.8.2.1.2  Rinse the probe liner with water. While squirting the 
water into the upper end of the probe, tilt and rotate the probe so 
that

[[Page 31725]]

all inside surfaces will be wetted with water. Let the water drain 
from the lower end into the sample container. The tester may use a 
funnel (glass or polyethylene) to aid in transferring the liquid 
washes to the container. Follow the rinse with a bristle brush. Hold 
the probe in an inclined position, and squirt water into the upper 
end as the probe brush is being pushed with a twisting action 
through the probe. Hold the sample container underneath the lower 
end of the probe, and catch any water and particulate matter that is 
brushed from the probe. Run the brush through the probe three times 
or more. Rinse the brush with water and quantitatively collect these 
washings in the sample container. After the brushing, make a final 
rinse of the probe as describe above.

    Note: Two people should clean the probe in order to minimize 
sample losses. Between sampling runs, brushes must be kept clean and 
free from contamination.

    8.8.2.1.3  Rinse the inside surface of each of the first three 
impingers (and connecting tubing) three separate times. Use a small 
portion of water for each rinse, and brush each surface to which the 
sample is exposed with a bristle brush to ensure recovery of fine 
particulate matter. Make a final rinse of each surface and of the 
brush, using water.
    8.8.2.1.4  After all water washing and particulate matter have 
been collected in the sample container, tighten the lid so the 
sample will not leak out when the container is shipped to the 
laboratory. Mark the height of the fluid level to determine whether 
leakage occurs during transport. Label the container clearly to 
identify its contents.
    8.8.2.1.5  If the first two impingers are to be analyzed 
separately to check for breakthrough, separate the contents and 
rinses of the two impingers into individual containers. Care must be 
taken to avoid physical carryover from the first impinger to the 
second. Any physical carryover of collected moisture into the second 
impinger will invalidate a breakthrough assessment.
    8.8.2.2  Container 2: Sample Blank. Prepare a blank by using a 
polyethylene container and adding a volume of water equal to the 
total volume in Container 1. Process the blank in the same manner as 
Container 1.
    8.8.2.3  Container 3: Silica Gel. Note the color of the 
indicating silica gel to determine whether it has been completely 
spent and make a notation of its condition. The impinger containing 
the silica gel may be used as a sample transport container with both 
ends sealed with tightly fitting caps or plugs. Ground-glass 
stoppers or TeflonTM caps maybe used. The silica gel 
impinger should then be labeled, covered with aluminum foil, and 
packaged on ice for transport to the laboratory. If the silica gel 
is removed from the impinger, the tester may use a funnel to pour 
the silica gel and a rubber policeman to remove the silica gel from 
the impinger. It is not necessary to remove the small amount of dust 
particles that may adhere to the impinger wall and are difficult to 
remove. Since the gain in weight is to be used for moisture 
calculations, do not use water or other liquids to transfer the 
silica gel. If a balance is available in the field, the spent silica 
gel (or silica gel plus impinger) may be weighed to the nearest
0.5 g.
    8.8.2.4  Sample containers should be placed in a cooler, cooled 
by (although not in contact with) ice. Putting sample bottles in 
Zip-LockTM bags can aid in maintaining the integrity of 
the sample labels. Sample containers should be placed vertically to 
avoid leakage during shipment. Samples should be cooled during 
shipment so they will be received cold at the laboratory. It is 
critical that samples be chilled immediately after recovery. If the 
source is susceptible to microbial contamination from wash water 
(e.g. forming section stack), add biocide as directed in section 
8.2.5.
    8.8.2.5  A quaternary ammonium compound can be used as a biocide 
to stabilize samples against microbial degradation following 
collection. Using the stock quaternary ammonium compound (QAC) 
solution; add 2.5 ml QAC solution for every 100 ml of recovered 
sample volume (estimate of volume is satisfactory) immediately after 
collection. The total volume of QAC solution must be accurately 
known and recorded, to correct for any dilution caused by the QAC 
solution addition.
    8.8.3  Sample Preparation for Analysis 8.8.3.1 The sample should 
be refrigerated if the analysis will not be performed on the day of 
sampling. Allow the sample to warm at room temperature for about two 
hours (if it has been refrigerated) prior to analyzing.
    8.8.3.2  Analyze the sample by the pararosaniline method, as 
described in Section 11. If the color-developed sample has an 
absorbance above the highest standard, a suitable dilution in high 
purity water should be prepared and analyzed.

9.0  Quality Control

    9.1  Sampling: See EPA Manual 600/4-77-02b for Method 5 quality 
control.
    9.2  Analysis: The quality assurance program required for this 
method includes the analysis of the field and method blanks, and 
procedure validations. The positive identification and quantitation 
of formaldehyde are dependent on the integrity of the samples 
received and the precision and accuracy of the analytical 
methodology. Quality assurance procedures for this method are 
designed to monitor the performance of the analytical methodology 
and to provide the required information to take corrective action if 
problems are observed in laboratory operations or in field sampling 
activities.
    9.2.1  Field Blanks: Field blanks must be submitted with the 
samples collected at each sampling site. The field blanks include 
the sample bottles containing aliquots of sample recover water, and 
water reagent. At a minimum, one complete sampling train will be 
assembled in the field staging area, taken to the sampling area, and 
leak-checked at the beginning and end of the testing (or for the 
same total number of times as the actual sampling train). The probe 
of the blank train must be heated during the sample test. The train 
will be recovered as if it were an actual test sample. No gaseous 
sample will be passed through the blank sampling train.
    9.2.2  Blank Correction: The field blank formaldehyde 
concentrations will be subtracted from the appropriate sample 
formaldehyde concentrations. Blank formaldehyde concentrations above 
0.25 g/ml should be considered suspect, and subtraction 
from the sample formaldehyde concentrations should be performed in a 
manner acceptable to the Administrator.
    9.2.3  Method Blanks: A method blank must be prepared for each 
set of analytical operations, to evaluate contamination and 
artifacts that can be derived from glassware, reagents, and sample 
handling in the laboratory.

10  Calibration

    10.1  Probe Nozzle: Probe nozzles shall be calibrated before 
their initial use in the field. Using a micrometer, measure the 
inside diameter of the nozzle to the nearest 0.025 mm (0.001 in). 
Make measurements at three separate places across the diameter and 
obtain the average of the measurements. The difference between the 
high and low numbers shall not exceed 0.1 mm (0.004 in). When the 
nozzle becomes nicked or corroded, it shall be repaired and 
calibrated, or replaced with a calibrated nozzle before use. Each 
nozzle must be permanently and uniquely identified.
    10.2  Pitot Tube: The Type S pitot tube assembly shall be 
calibrated according to the procedure outlined in Section 4 of EPA 
Method 2, or assigned a nominal coefficient of 0.84 if it is not 
visibly nicked or corroded and if it meets design and intercomponent 
spacing specifications.

10.3  Metering System

    10.3.1  Before its initial use in the field, the metering system 
shall be calibrated according to the procedure outlined in APTD-
0576. Instead of physically adjusting the dry-gas meter dial 
readings to correspond to the wet-test meter readings, calibration 
factors may be used to correct the gas meter dial readings 
mathematically to the proper values. Before calibrating the metering 
system, it is suggested that a leak-check be conducted. For metering 
systems having diaphragm pumps, the normal leak-check procedure will 
not delete leakages with the pump. For these cases, the following 
leak-check procedure will apply: Make a ten-minute calibration run 
at 0.00057 m3/min (0.02 cfm). At the end of the run, take 
the difference of the measured wet-test and dry-gas meter volumes 
and divide the difference by 10 to get the leak rate. The leak rate 
should not exceed 0.00057 m3/min (0.02 cfm).
    10.3.2  After each field use, check the calibration of the 
metering system by performing three calibration runs at a single 
intermediate orifice setting (based on the previous field test). Set 
the vacuum at the maximum value reached during the test series. To 
adjust the vacuum, insert a valve between the wet-test meter and the 
inlet of the metering system. Calculate the average value of the 
calibration factor. If the calibration has changed by more than 5 
percent, recalibrate the meter over the full range of orifice 
settings, as outlined in APTD-0576.
    10.3.3  Leak-check of metering system: The portion of the 
sampling train from the pump to the orifice meter (see Figure 1)

[[Page 31726]]

should be leak-checked prior to initial use and after each shipment. 
Leakage after the pump will result in less volume being recorded 
than is actually sampled. Use the following procedure: Close the 
main valve on the meter box. Insert a one-hole rubber stopper with 
rubber tubing attached into the orifice exhaust pipe. Disconnect and 
vent the low side of the orifice manometer. Close off the low side 
orifice tap. Pressurize the system to 13-18 cm (5-7 in) water column 
by blowing into the rubber tubing. Pinch off the tubing and observe 
the manometer for 1 min. A loss of pressure on the manometer 
indicates a leak in the meter box. Leaks must be corrected.

    Note: If the dry-gas meter coefficient values obtained before 
and after a test series differ by >5 percent, either the test series 
must be voided or calculations for test series must be performed 
using whichever meter coefficient value (i.e., before or after) 
gives the lower value of total sample volume.

    10.4  Probe Heater: The probe heating system must be calibrated 
before its initial use in the field according to the procedure 
outlined in APTD-0576. Probes constructed according to APTD-0581 
need not be calibrated if the calibration curves in APTD-0576 are 
used.
    10.5  Temperature gauges: Use the procedure in section 4.3 of 
USEPA Method 2 to calibrate in-stack temperature gauges. Dial 
thermometers such as are used for the dry gas meter and condenser 
outlet, shall be calibrated against mercury-in-glass thermometers.
    10.6  Barometer: Adjust the barometer initially and before each 
test series to agree to within 2.5 mm Hg (0.1 in Hg) of 
the mercury barometer. Alternately, if a National Weather Service 
Station (NWSS) is located at the same altitude above sea level as 
the test site, the barometric pressure reported by the NWSS may be 
used.
    10.7  Balance: Calibrate the balance before each test series, 
using Class S standard weights. The weights must be within 
0.5 percent of the standards, or the balance must be 
adjusted to meet these limits.

11.0  Procedure for Analysis.

    The working formaldehyde standards (0.25, 0.50, 1.0, 2.0, and 
3.0 g/ml) are analyzed and a calibration curve is 
calculated for each day's analysis. The standards should be analyzed 
first to ensure that the method is working properly prior to 
analyzing the samples. In addition, a sample of the high-purity 
water should also be analyzed and used as a ``0'' formaldehyde 
standard.
    The procedure for analysis of samples and standards is 
identical: Using the pipet set to 2.50 ml, pipet 2.50 ml of the 
solution to be analyzed into a polystyrene cuvette. Using the 250 
l pipet, pipet 250 l of the pararosaniline reagent 
solution into the cuvette. Seal the top of the cuvette with a 
Parafilm square and shake at least 30 seconds to ensure the solution 
in the cuvette is well-mixed. Peel back a corner of the Parafilm so 
the next reagent can be added. Using the 250 l pipet, pipet 
250 l of the sodium sulfite reagent solution into the 
cuvette. Reseal the cuvette with the Parafilm, and again shake for 
about 30 seconds to mix the solution in the cuvette. Record the time 
of addition of the sodium sulfite and let the color develop at room 
temperature for 60 minutes. Set the spectrophotometer to 570 nm and 
set to read in Absorbance Units. The spectrophotometer should be 
equipped with a holder for the 1-cm pathlength cuvettes. Place 
cuvette(s) containing high-purity water in the spectrophotometer and 
adjust to read 0.000 AU.
    After the 60 minutes color development period, read the standard 
and samples in the spectrophotometer. Record the absorbance reading 
for each cuvette. The calibration curve is calculated by linear 
regression, with the formaldehyde concentration as the ``x'' 
coordinate of the pair, and the absorbance reading as the ``y'' 
coordinate. The procedure is very reproducible, and typically will 
yield values similar to these for the calibration curve:

Correlation Coefficient: 0.9999
Slope: 0.50
Y-Intercept: 0.090

The formaldehyde concentration of the samples can be found by using 
the trend-line feature of the calculator or computer program used 
for the linear regression. For example, the TI-55 calculators use 
the ``X'' key (this gives the predicted formaldehyde concentration 
for the value of the absorbance you key in for the sample). Multiply 
the formaldehyde concentration from the sample by the dilution 
factor, if any, for the sample to give the formaldehyde 
concentration of the original, undiluted, sample (units will be 
micrograms/ml).

11.1  Notes on the Pararosaniline Procedure

    11.1.1  The pararosaniline method is temperature-sensitive. 
However, the small fluctuations typical of a laboratory will not 
significantly affect the results.
    11.1.2  The calibration curve is linear to beyond 4 
``g/ml'' formaldehyde, however, a research-grade 
spectrophotometer is required to reproducibly read the high 
absorbance values. Consult your instrument manual to evaluate the 
capability of the spectrophotometer.
    11.1.3  The quality of the laboratory water used to prepare 
standards and make dilutions is critical. It is important that the 
cautions given in the Reagents section be observed. This procedure 
allows quantitation of formaldehyde at very low levels, and thus it 
is imperative to avoid contamination from other sources of 
formaldehyde and to exercise the degree of care required for trace 
analyses.
    11.1.4  The analyst should become familiar with the operation of 
the Oxford or equivalent pipettors before using them for an 
analysis. Follow the instructions of the manufacturer; one can pipet 
water into a tared container on any analytical balance to check 
pipet accuracy and precision. This will also establish if the proper 
technique is being used. Always use a new tip for each pipetting 
operation.
    11.1.5  This procedure follows the recommendations of ASTM 
Standard Guide D 3614, reading all solutions versus water in the 
reference cell. This allows the absorbance of the blank to be 
tracked on a daily basis. Refer to ASTM D 3614 for more information.

12.0  Calculations

    Carry out calculations, retaining at least one extra decimal 
figure beyond that of the acquired data. Round off figures after 
final calculations.

12.1  Calculations of Total Formaldehyde

    12.1.1  To determine the total formaldehyde in mg, use the 
following equation if biocide was not used:
    Total mg formaldehyde=
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14JN99.043
    
Where:
    Cd = measured conc. formaldehyde, g/ml
V = total volume of stack sample, ml
DF = dilution factor

    12.1.2  To determine the total formaldehyde in mg, use the 
following equation if biocide was used:
    Total mg formaldehyde=
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14JN99.044
    
Where:

Cd = measured conc. formaldehyde, g/ml
V = total volume of stack sample, ml
B = total volume of biocide added to sample, ml
DF = dilution factor

    12.2  Formaldehyde concentration (mg/m3) in stack 
gas. Determine the formaldehyde concentration (mg/m3) in 
the stack gas using the following equation: Formaldehyde 
concentration (mg/m3) =
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14JN99.045

Where:

K = 35.31 cu ft/m3 for Vm(std) in English 
units, or
K = 1.00 m3/m3 for Vm(std) in 
metric units
Vm(std) = volume of gas sample measured by a dry gas 
meter, corrected to standard conditions, dscm (dscf)

    12.3  Average dry gas meter temperature and average orifice 
pressure drop are obtained from the data sheet.
    12.4  Dry Gas Volume: Calculate Vm(std) and adjust 
for leakage, if necessary, using the equation in Section 6.3 of EPA 
Method 5, 40 CFR part 60, appendix A.
    12.5  Volume of Water Vapor and Moisture Content: Calculated the 
volume of water vapor and moisture content from equations 5-2 and 5-
3 of EPA Method 5.

13.0  Method Performance

    The precision of this method is estimated to be better than 
5 percent, expressed as  the percent 
relative standard deviation.

14.0  Pollution Prevention. (Reserved)

15.0  Waste Management. (Reserved)

16.0  References

R.R. Miksch, et al., Analytical Chemistry, November 1981, 53 pp. 
2118-2123.
J.F. Walker, Formaldehyde, Third Edition, 1964.
US EPA 40 CFR, part 60, Appendix A, Test Methods 1-5

[[Page 31727]]

Method 318--Extractive FTIR Method for the Measurement of Emissions 
From the Mineral Wool and Wool Fiberglass Industries

1.0  Scope and Application

    This method has been validated and approved for mineral wool and 
wool fiberglass sources. This method may not be applied to other 
source categories without validation and approval by the 
Administrator according to the procedures in Test Method 301, 40 CFR 
part 63, appendix A. For sources seeking to apply FTIR to other 
source categories, Test Method 320 (40 CFR part 63, appendix A) may 
be utilized.
    1.1  Scope. The analytes measured by this method and their CAS 
numbers are:

Carbon Monoxide  630-08-0
Carbonyl Sulfide  463-58-1
Formaldehyde  50-00-0
Methanol  1455-13-6
Phenol  108-95-2

1.2  Applicability

    1.2.1  This method is applicable for the determination of 
formaldehyde, phenol, methanol, carbonyl sulfide (COS) and carbon 
monoxide (CO) concentrations in controlled and uncontrolled 
emissions from manufacturing processes using phenolic resins. The 
compounds are analyzed in the mid-infrared spectral region (about 
400 to 4000 cm-1 or 25 to 2.5 m). Suggested analytical 
regions are given below (Table 1). Slight deviations from these 
recommended regions may be necessary due to variations in moisture 
content and ammonia concentration from source to source.

                                      Table 1.--Example Analytical Regions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Compound                Analytical region (cm-1)  FLm - FUm           Potential interferants
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Formaldehyde.....................  2840.93-2679.83.......................  Water, Methane.
Phenol...........................  1231.32-1131.47.......................  Water, Ammonia, Methane.
Methanol.........................  1041.56-1019.95.......................  Water, Ammonia.
COSa.............................  2028.4-2091.9.........................  Water, CO2, CO.
COa..............................  2092.1-2191.8.........................  Water, CO2, COS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Suggested analytical regions assume about 15 percent moisture and CO2, and that COS and CO have about the same
  absorbance (in the range of 10 to 50 ppm). If CO and COS are hundreds of ppm or higher, then CO2 and moisture
  interference is reduced. If CO or COS is present at high concentration and the other at low concentration,
  then a shorter cell pathlength may be necessary to measure the high concentration component.

1.2.2  This method does not apply when: (a) Polymerization of 
formaldehyde occurs, (b) moisture condenses in either the sampling 
system or the instrumentation, and (c) when moisture content of the 
gas stream is so high relative to the analyte concentrations that it 
causes severe spectral interference.

1.3  Method Range and Sensitivity

    1.3.1  The analytical range is a function of instrumental design 
and composition of the gas stream. Theoretical detection limits 
depend, in part, on (a) the absorption coefficient of the compound 
in the analytical frequency region, (b) the spectral resolution, (c) 
interferometer sampling time, (d) detector sensitivity and response, 
and (e) absorption pathlength.
    1.3.2  Practically, there is no upper limit to the range. The 
practical lower detection limit is usually higher than the 
theoretical value, and depends on (a) moisture content of the flue 
gas, (b) presence of interferants, and (c) losses in the sampling 
system. In general, a 22 meter pathlength cell in a suitable 
sampling system can achieve practical detection limits of 1.5 ppm 
for three compounds (formaldehyde, phenol, and methanol) at moisture 
levels up to 15 percent by volume. Sources with uncontrolled 
emissions of CO and COS may require a 4 meter pathlength cell due to 
high concentration levels. For these two compounds, make sure 
absorbance of highest concentration component is <1.0. 1.4="" data="" quality="" objectives="" 1.4.1="" in="" designing="" or="" configuring="" the="" system,="" the="" analyst="" first="" sets="" the="" data="" quality="" objectives,="" i.e.,="" the="" desired="" lower="" detection="" limit="">i) and the desired analytical uncertainty 
(AUi) for each compound. The instrumental parameters 
(factors b, c, d, and e in Section 1.3.1) are then chosen to meet 
these requirements, using Appendix D of the FTIR Protocol.
1.4.2  Data quality for each application is determined, in part, by 
measuring the RMS (Root Mean Square) noise level in each analytical 
spectral region (Appendix C of the FTIR Protocol). The RMS noise is 
defined as the RMSD (Root Mean Square Deviation) of the absorbance 
values in an analytical region from the mean absorbance value of the 
region. Appendix D of the FTIR Protocol defines the MAUim 
(minimum analyte uncertainty of the ith analyte in the 
mth analytical region). The MAU is the minimum analyte 
concentration for which the analytical uncertainty limit 
(AUi) can be maintained: if the measured analyte 
concentration is less than MAUi, then data quality is 
unacceptable. Table 2 gives some example DL and AU values along with 
calculated areas and MAU values using the protocol procedures.

                                                    Table 2.--Example Pre-Test Protocol Calculations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Protocol value                         Form                        Phenol                      Methanol                Protocol  appendix
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reference concentrationa (ppm-        3.016                        3.017                        5.064                        ...........................
 meters)/K.
Reference Band Area.................  8.2544                       16.6417                      4.9416                       B
DL (ppm-meters)/K...................  0.1117                       0.1117                       0.1117                       B
AU..................................  0.2                          0.2                          0.2                          B
CL..................................  0.02234                      0.02234                      0.02234                      B
FL..................................  2679.83                      1131.47                      1019.95                      B
FU..................................  2840.93                      1231.32                      1041.56                      B
FC..................................  2760.38                      1181.395                     1030.755                     B
AAI (ppm-meters)/K..................  0.18440                      0.01201                      0.00132                      B
RMSD................................  2.28E-03                     1.21E-03                     1.07E-03                     C
MAU (ppm-meters)/K..................  4.45E-02                     7.26E-03                     4.68E-03                     D
MAU (ppm at 22).....................  0.0797                       0.0130                       0.0084                       D
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Concentration units are: ppm concentration of the reference sample (ASC), times the path length of the FTIR cell used when the reference spectrum was
  measured (meters), divided by the absolute temperature of the reference sample in Kelvin (K), or (ppm-meters)/K.


[[Page 31728]]

2.0  Summary of Method

2.1  Principle

    2.1.1  Molecules are composed of chemically bonded atoms, which 
are in constant motion. The atomic motions result in bond 
deformations (bond stretching and bond-angle bending). The number of 
fundamental (or independent) vibrational motions depends on the 
number of atoms (N) in the molecule. At typical testing 
temperatures, most molecules are in the ground-state vibrational 
state for most of their fundamental vibrational motions. A molecule 
can undergo a transition from its ground state (for a particular 
vibration) to the first excited state by absorbing a quantum of 
light at a frequency characteristic of the molecule and the 
molecular motion. Molecules also undergo rotational transitions by 
absorbing energies in the far-infrared or microwave spectral 
regions. Rotational transition absorbencies are superimposed on the 
vibrational absorbencies to give a characteristic shape to each 
rotational-vibrational absorbance ``band.''
    2.1.2  Most molecules exhibit more than one absorbance band in 
several frequency regions to produce an infrared spectrum (a 
characteristic pattern of bands or a ``fingerprint'') that is unique 
to each molecule. The infrared spectrum of a molecule depends on its 
structure (bond lengths, bond angles, bond strengths, and atomic 
masses). Even small differences in structure can produce 
significantly different spectra.
    2.1.3  Spectral band intensities vary with the concentration of 
the absorbing compound. Within constraints, the relationship between 
absorbance and sample concentration is linear. Sample spectra are 
compared to reference spectra to determine the species and their 
concentrations.

2.2  Sampling and Analysis

    2.2.1  Flue gas is continuously extracted from the source, and 
the gas or a portion of the gas is conveyed to the FTIR gas cell, 
where a spectrum of the flue gas is recorded. Absorbance band 
intensities are related to sample concentrations by Beer's Law.
Where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14JN99.046

A = absorbance of the ith component at the given 
frequency, .
a = absorption coefficient of the ith component at the 
frequency, .
b = path length of the cell.
c = concentration of the ith compound in the sample at 
frequency .

    2.2.2  After identifying a compound from the infrared spectrum, 
its concentration is determined by comparing band intensities in the 
sample spectrum to band intensities in ``reference spectra'' of the 
formaldehyde, phenol, methanol, COS and CO. These reference spectra 
are available in a permanent soft copy from the EPA spectral library 
on the EMTIC bulletin board. The source may also prepare reference 
spectra according to Section 4.5 of the FTIR Protocol.

    Note: Reference spectra not prepared according to the FTIR 
Protocol are not acceptable for use in this test method. 
Documentation detailing the FTIR Protocol steps used in preparing 
any non-EPA reference spectra shall be included in each test report 
submitted by the source.

    2.3  Operator Requirements. The analyst must have some knowledge 
of source sampling and of infrared spectral patterns to operate the 
sampling system and to choose a suitable instrument configuration. 
The analyst should also understand FTIR instrument operation well 
enough to choose an instrument configuration consistent with the 
data quality objectives.

3.0  Definitions

    See Appendix A of the FTIR Protocol.

4.0  Interferences

    4.1  Analytical (or Spectral) Interferences. Water vapor. High 
concentrations of ammonia (hundreds of ppm) may interfere with the 
analysis of low concentrations of methanol (1 to 5 ppm). For CO, 
carbon dioxide and water may be interferants. In cases where COS 
levels are low relative to CO levels, CO and water may be 
interferants.
    4.2  Sampling System Interferences. Water, if it condenses, and 
ammonia, which reacts with formaldehyde.

5.0  Safety

    5.1  Formaldehyde is a suspected carcinogen; therefore, exposure 
to this compound must be limited. Proper monitoring and safety 
precautions must be practiced in any atmosphere with potentially 
high concentrations of CO.
    5.2  This method may involve sampling at locations having high 
positive or negative pressures, high temperatures, elevated heights, 
high concentrations of hazardous or toxic pollutants, or other 
diverse sampling conditions. It is the responsibility of the 
tester(s) to ensure proper safety and health practices, and to 
determine the applicability of regulatory limitations before 
performing this test method.

6.0  Equipment and Supplies

    The equipment and supplies are based on the schematic of a 
sampling train shown in Figure 1. Either the evacuated or purged 
sampling technique may be used with this sampling train. 
Alternatives may be used, provided that the data quality objectives 
of this method are met.
    6.1  Sampling Probe. Glass, stainless steel, or other 
appropriate material of sufficient length and physical integrity to 
sustain heating, prevent adsorption of analytes, and to reach gas 
sampling point.
    6.2  Particulate Filters. A glass wool plug (optional) inserted 
at the probe tip (for large particulate removal) and a filter rated 
at 1-micron (e.g., BalstonTM) for fine particulate 
removal, placed immediately after the heated probe.
    6.3  Sampling Line/Heating System. Heated (maintained at 250 
 25 degrees F) stainless steel, TeflonTM, or 
other inert material that does not adsorb the analytes, to transport 
the sample to analytical system.
    6.4  Stainless Steel Tubing. Type 316, e.g., \3/8\ in. diameter, 
and appropriate length for heated connections.
    6.5  Gas Regulators. Appropriate for individual gas cylinders.

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

[[Page 31729]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14JN99.052



BILLING CODE 6560-50-C

[[Page 31730]]

    6.6  TeflonTM Tubing. Diameter (e.g., \3/8\ in.) and 
length suitable to connect cylinder regulators.
    6.7  Sample Pump. A leak-free pump (e.g., KNF TM), 
with by-pass valve, capable of pulling sample through entire 
sampling system at a rate of about 10 to 20 L/min. If placed before 
the analytical system, heat the pump and use a pump fabricated from 
materials non-reactive to the target pollutants. If the pump is 
located after the instrument, systematically record the sample 
pressure in the gas cell.
    6.8  Gas Sample Manifold. A heated manifold that diverts part of 
the sample stream to the analyzer, and the rest to the by-pass 
discharge vent or other analytical instrumentation.
    6.9  Rotameter. A calibrated 0 to 20 L/min range rotameter.
    6.10  FTIR Analytical System. Spectrometer and detector, capable 
of measuring formaldehyde, phenol, methanol, COS and CO to the 
predetermined minimum detectable level. The system shall include a 
personal computer with compatible software that provides real-time 
updates of the spectral profile during sample collection and 
spectral collection.
    6.11  FTIR Cell Pump. Required for the evacuated sampling 
technique, capable of evacuating the FTIR cell volume within 2 
minutes. The FTIR cell pump should allow the operator to obtain at 
least 8 sample spectra in 1 hour.
    6.12  Absolute Pressure Gauge. Heatable and capable of measuring 
pressure from 0 to 1000 mmHg to within 2.5 mmHg (e.g., 
BaratronTM).
    6.13  Temperature Gauge. Capable of measuring the cell 
temperature to within 2 deg.C.

7.0  Reagents and Standards

    7.1  Ethylene (Calibration Transfer Standard). Obtain NIST 
traceable (or Protocol) cylinder gas.
    7.2  Nitrogen. Ultra high purity (UHP) grade.
    7.3  Reference Spectra. Obtain reference spectra for the target 
pollutants at concentrations that bracket (in ppm-meter/K) the 
emission source levels. Also, obtain reference spectra for 
SF6 and ethylene. Suitable concentrations are 0.0112 to 
0.112 (ppm-meter)/K for SF6 and 5.61 (ppm-meter)/K or 
less for ethylene. The reference spectra shall meet the criteria for 
acceptance outlined in Section 2.2.2. The optical density (ppm-
meters/K) of the reference spectrum must match the optical density 
of the sample spectrum within (less than) 25 percent.

8.0  Sample Collection, Preservation, and Storage

    Sampling should be performed in the following sequence: Collect 
background, collect CTS spectrum, collect samples, collect post-test 
CTS spectrum, verify that two copies of all data were stored on 
separate computer media.
    8.1  Pretest Preparations and Evaluations. Using the procedure 
in Section 4.0 of the FTIR Protocol, determine the optimum sampling 
system configuration for sampling the target pollutants. Table 2 
gives some example values for AU, DL, and MAU. Based on a study 
(Reference 1), an FTIR system using 1 cm-1 resolution, 22 
meter path length, and a broad band MCT detector was suitable for 
meeting the requirements in Table 2. Other factors that must be 
determined are:
    a. Test requirements: AUi, CMAXi, 
DLi, OFUi, and tAN for each.
    b. Interferants: See Table 1.
    c. Sampling system: LS', Pmin, 
PS', TS', tSS, VSS; 
fractional error, MIL.
    d. Analytical regions: 1 through Nm, FLm, 
FCm, and FUm, plus interferants, 
FFUm, FFLm, wavenumber range FNU to FNL. See 
Tables 1 and 2.
    8.1.1  If necessary, sample and acquire an initial spectrum. 
Then determine the proper operational pathlength of the instrument 
to obtain non-saturated absorbances of the target analytes.
    8.1.2  Set up the sampling train as shown in Figure 1.
    8.2  Sampling System Leak-check. Leak-check from the probe tip 
to pump outlet as follows: Connect a 0- to 250-mL/min rate meter 
(rotameter or bubble meter) to the outlet of the pump. Close off the 
inlet to the probe, and note the leakage rate. The leakage rate 
shall be 200 mL/min.
    8.3  Analytical System Leak-check.
    8.3.1  For the evacuated sample technique, close the valve to 
the FTIR cell, and evacuate the absorption cell to the minimum 
absolute pressure Pmin. Close the valve to the pump, and 
determine the change in pressure Pv after 2 
minutes.
    8.3.2  For both the evacuated sample and purging techniques, 
pressurize the system to about 100 mmHg above atmospheric pressure. 
Isolate the pump and determine the change in pressure 
Pp after 2 minutes.
    8.3.3  Measure the barometric pressure, Pb in mmHg.
    8.3.4  Determine the percent leak volume %VL for the 
signal integration time tSS and for 
Pmax, i.e., the larger of Pv 
or Pp, as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14JN99.047

Where:

50 = 100% divided by the leak-check time of 2 minutes.

    8.3.5  Leak volumes in excess of 4 percent of the sample system 
volume VSS are unacceptable.
    8.4  Background Spectrum. Evacuate the gas cell to 5 
mmHg, and fill with dry nitrogen gas to ambient pressure. Verify 
that no significant amounts of absorbing species (for example water 
vapor and CO2) are present. Collect a background 
spectrum, using a signal averaging period equal to or greater than 
the averaging period for the sample spectra. Assign a unique file 
name to the background spectrum. Store the spectra of the background 
interferogram and processed single-beam background spectrum on two 
separate computer media (one is used as the back-up). If continuous 
sampling will be used during sample collection, collect the 
background spectrum with nitrogen gas flowing through the cell at 
the same pressure and temperature as will be used during sampling.
    8.5  Pre-Test Calibration Transfer Standard. Evacuate the gas 
cell to 5 mmHg absolute pressure, and fill the FTIR cell 
to atmospheric pressure with the CTS gas. Or, purge the cell with 10 
cell volumes of CTS gas. Record the spectrum. If continuous sampling 
will be used during sample collection, collect the CTS spectrum with 
CTS gas flowing through the cell at the same pressure and 
temperature as will be used during sampling.

8.6  Samples

    8.6.1  Evacuated Samples. Evacuate the absorbance cell to 
5 mmHg absolute pressure. Fill the cell with flue gas to 
ambient pressure and record the spectrum. Before taking the next 
sample, evacuate the cell until no further evidence of absorption 
exists. Repeat this procedure to collect at least 8 separate spectra 
(samples) in 1 hour.
    8.6.2  Purge Sampling. Purge the FTIR cell with 10 cell volumes 
of flue gas and at least for about 10 minutes. Discontinue the gas 
cell purge, isolate the cell, and record the sample spectrum and the 
pressure. Before taking the next sample, purge the cell with 10 cell 
volumes of flue gas.
    8.6.3  Continuous Sampling. Spectra can be collected 
continuously while the FTIR cell is being purged. The sample 
integration time, tss, the sample flow rate through the 
FTIR gas cell, and the total run time must be chosen so that the 
collected data consist of at least 10 spectra with each spectrum 
being of a separate cell volume of flue gas. More spectra can be 
collected over the run time and the total run time (and number of 
spectra) can be extended as well.

8.7  Sampling QA, Data Storage and Reporting

    8.7.1  Sample integration times should be sufficient to achieve 
the required signal-to-noise ratios. Obtain an absorbance spectrum 
by filling the cell with nitrogen. Measure the RMSD in each 
analytical region in this absorbance spectrum. Verify that the 
number of scans is sufficient to achieve the target MAU (Table 2).
    8.7.2  Identify all sample spectra with unique file names.
    8.7.3  Store on two separate computer media a copy of sample 
interferograms and processed spectra. The data shall be available to 
the Administrator on request for the length of time specified in the 
applicable regulation.
    8.7.4  For each sample spectrum, document the sampling 
conditions, the sampling time (while the cell was being filled), the 
time the spectrum was recorded, the instrumental conditions (path 
length, temperature, pressure, resolution, integration time), and 
the spectral file name. Keep a hard copy of these data sheets.
    8.8  Signal Transmittance. While sampling, monitor the signal 
transmittance through the instrumental system. If signal 
transmittance (relative to the background) drops below 95 percent in 
any spectral region where the sample does not absorb infrared 
energy, obtain a new background spectrum.
    8.9  Post-run CTS. After each sampling run, record another CTS 
spectrum.

8.10  Post-test QA

    8.10.1  Inspect the sample spectra immediately after the run to 
verify that the

[[Page 31731]]

gas matrix composition was close to the expected (assumed) gas 
matrix.
    8.10.2  Verify that the sampling and instrumental parameters 
were appropriate for the conditions encountered. For example, if the 
moisture is much greater than anticipated, it will be necessary to 
use a shorter path length or dilute the sample.
    8.10.3  Compare the pre and post-run CTS spectra. They shall 
agree to within -5 percent. See FTIR Protocol, Appendix E.

9.0  Quality Control

    Follow the quality assurance procedures in the method, including 
the analysis of pre and post-run calibration transfer standards 
(Sections 8.5 and 8.9) and the post-test quality assurance 
procedures in Section 8.10.

10.0  Calibration and Standardization

    10.1  Signal-to-Noise Ratio (S/N). The S/N shall be sufficient 
to meet the MAU in each analytical region.
    10.2  Absorbance Pathlength. Verify the absorbance path length 
by comparing CTS spectra to reference spectra of the calibration 
gas(es). See FTIR Protocol, Appendix E.
    10.3  Instrument Resolution. Measure the line width of 
appropriate CTS band(s) and compare to reference CTS spectra to 
verify instrumental resolution.
    10.4  Apodization Function. Choose appropriate apodization 
function. Determine any appropriate mathematical transformations 
that are required to correct instrumental errors by measuring the 
CTS. Any mathematical transformations must be documented and 
reproducible.
    10.5  FTIR Cell Volume. Evacuate the cell to 5 mmHg. 
Measure the initial absolute temperature (Ti) and 
absolute pressure (Pi). Connect a wet test meter (or a 
calibrated dry gas meter), and slowly draw room air into the cell. 
Measure the meter volume (Vm), meter absolute temperature 
(Tm), and meter absolute pressure (Pm), and 
the cell final absolute temperature (Tf) and absolute 
pressure (Pf). Calculate the FTIR cell volume 
Vss, including that of the connecting tubing, as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14JN99.048

As an alternative to the wet test 
meter/calibrated dry gas meter procedure, measure the inside 
dimensions of the cell cylinder and calculate its volume.

11.0  Procedure

    Refer to Sections 4.6-4.11, Sections 5, 6, and 7, and the 
appendices of the FTIR Protocol.

12.0  Data Analysis and Calculations

    a. Data analysis is performed using appropriate reference 
spectra whose concentrations can be verified using CTS spectra. 
Various analytical programs are available to relate sample 
absorbance to a concentration standard. Calculated concentrations 
should be verified by analyzing spectral baselines after 
mathematically subtracting scaled reference spectra from the sample 
spectra. A full description of the data analysis and calculations 
may be found in the FTIR Protocol (Sections 4.0, 5.0, 6.0 and 
appendices).
    b. Correct the calculated concentrations in sample spectra for 
differences in absorption pathlength between the reference and 
sample spectra by:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14JN99.049

Where:

Ccorr = The pathlength corrected concentration.
Ccalc = The initial calculated concentration (output of 
the Multicomp program designed for the compound).
Lr = The pathlength associated with the reference 
spectra.
Ls = The pathlength associated with the sample spectra.
Ts = The absolute temperature (K) of the sample gas.
Tr = The absolute gas temperature (K) at which reference 
spectra were recorded.

13.0  Reporting and Recordkeeping

    All interferograms used in determining source concentration 
shall be stored for the period of time required in the applicable 
regulation. The Administrator has the option of requesting the 
interferograms recorded during the test in electronic form as part 
of the test report.

14.0  Method Performance

    Refer to the FTIR Protocol.

15.0  Pollution Prevention. [Reserved]

16.0  Waste Management

    Laboratory standards prepared from the formaldehyde and phenol 
are handled according to the instructions in the materials safety 
data sheets (MSDS).

17.0  References

    (1) ``Field Validation Test Using Fourier Transform Infrared 
(FTIR) Spectrometry To Measure Formaldehyde, Phenol and Methanol at 
a Wool Fiberglass Production Facility.'' Draft. U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency Report, Entropy, Inc., EPA Contract No. 68D20163, 
Work Assignment I-32, December 1994 (docket item II-A-13).
    (2) ``Method 301--Field Validation of Pollutant Measurement 
Methods from Various Waste Media,'' 40 CFR part 63, appendix A.

[FR Doc. 99-12758 Filed 6-11-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P